Older incident, back in the news it seems. Two people got into an argument in a movie theater, one threw popcorn, the other one threw a bullet. This sums it up the best:
"The main argument that the state is going to make is, popcorn is not a deadly weapon. Therefore, he did not have the right to use deadly force," legal analyst Jeff Swartz told CNN affiliate WFTS.
"The claim of the defense is that Mr. Oulson was committing a felony against Mr. Reeves by abuse of the elderly when he threw his cell phone at Mr. Reeves," Swartz said.
Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law allows people to use deadly force when they fear death or great bodily harm.
Though true popcorn is not a deadly weapon, fists sure can be.
Before Oulson was shot, she said he was leaning toward them, and it appeared that he was going to go over the seat toward them.
“It happened very quickly, and his whole upper body just came forward, and I thought that he was coming over,” she said.
Coming over your seat at someone could conceivably make them fear great bodily harm.
Of course the dead guy's widow has a different story:
Witnesses told police that Oulson threw a container of popcorn at Curtis Reeves before he was shot, police said. His widow, Nicole Oulson, was also shot in the hand. She told ABC News in 2014 that her husband was texting the babysitter, who was watching their young daughter.
"It was a couple of words. No threats. No harm. No nothing," Nicole Oulson said in 2014. "In the blink of an eye, 30 seconds, it just shattered my world."
The old man is a retired cop and should know his escalation of force better than that. Harsh words and popcorn to require an escalation to lethal force. Now, using lethal force in self defense only requires that the defender felt that there was a reasonable imminent threat of bodily harm it doesn't require that the attacker be armed or in the process of attacking only that it was reasonable to believe that the attacker was about to commit an aggressive act of violence that would result in the bodily harm of the defender. So the defense of the shooter is that the attacker was verbally aggressive, threw objects at him and was about to attack him physically and try to hurt him so the defender shot first to prevent that imminent physical attack from happening. Was that a reasonable perception of an imminent threat of bodily harm? The jury is going to have to sort that out. Stand Your Ground just means that the shooter didn't have a legal obligation to run away from the popcorn thrower to avoid a confrontation. Stand Your Ground laws don't mean that lethal force is justified it just means that only the defender doesn't have to flee from an altercation instigated by the attacker.
More to the question, why the feth would you take a gun to a movie theater? Seems like yet another case of a person who thinks using a gun first rather than defusing the situation like any sane person would usage best course of action.
Hope the idiot gets jail. There's enough tragedy with guns in the world without some idiots thinking using one in a trivial situation like this is justified.
Freddy Kruger wrote: More to the question, why the feth would you take a gun to a movie theater? Seems like yet another case of a person who thinks using a gun first rather than defusing the situation like any sane person would usage best course of action.
Hope the idiot gets jail. There's enough tragedy with guns in the world without some idiots thinking using one in a trivial situation like this is justified.
To answer your question:
Because he is allowed to. Even in states with very high restrictions on carrying, retired police tend to get an exception. Believe it or not, folks get mugged/robbed in movie theater parking lots.
The situation is only 'trivial' if the argument stopped with the guy being asked not to text stops texting. Once he got physical, even just by throwing popcorn, 'trivial' probably is not a good term to use. If he did threaten to come over his seat (or indeed did hit the retired cop) 'trivial' does not come close. If the old guy was unarmed, and got his face caved in, 'trivial' would again not be a good term.
As for defusing the situation, by all accounts the old guy attempted to do so, even getting up and informing the management. The texter seems to have been pissed the guy 'told on him' and further escalated.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I can say from personal experience that being struck on the head from a thrown mobile phone is not a pleasant experience.
It's not like being hit by a rock but it still bruises and can knock you off your stride.
Popcorn on the other hand is unlikely to have the same effect.
This whole case is a messy, tragic business, and I wonder how it will play out...
Agreed. When you factor in that elderly people are much more fragile, a cell phone could do some serious damage that wouldn't happen with a younger person.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I can say from personal experience that being struck on the head from a thrown mobile phone is not a pleasant experience.
It's not like being hit by a rock but it still bruises and can knock you off your stride.
Popcorn on the other hand is unlikely to have the same effect.
This whole case is a messy, tragic business, and I wonder how it will play out...
Agreed. When you factor in that elderly people are much more fragile, a cell phone could do some serious damage that wouldn't happen with a younger person.
I get the elderly being fragile argument 100% but from my very limited knowledge of this case and Florida gun law in general, it seems odd that a former policeman like this, could not have de-escalated the situation 'better.'
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I can say from personal experience that being struck on the head from a thrown mobile phone is not a pleasant experience.
It's not like being hit by a rock but it still bruises and can knock you off your stride.
Popcorn on the other hand is unlikely to have the same effect.
This whole case is a messy, tragic business, and I wonder how it will play out...
Agreed. When you factor in that elderly people are much more fragile, a cell phone could do some serious damage that wouldn't happen with a younger person.
I get the elderly being fragile argument 100% but from my very limited knowledge of this case and Florida gun law in general, it seems odd that a former policeman like this, could not have de-escalated the situation 'better.'
Yep, it's a crazy case. I was once in a theatre where a loud and spirited, but otherwise harmless group in the back was confronted by a cop who jumped up and yelled at them to shut up while flashing his badge. He was ignored, and that was as far as things went.
Freddy Kruger wrote: More to the question, why the feth would you take a gun to a movie theater? Seems like yet another case of a person who thinks using a gun first rather than defusing the situation like any sane person would usage best course of action.
Hope the idiot gets jail. There's enough tragedy with guns in the world without some idiots thinking using one in a trivial situation like this is justified.
Personal protection - for example, there was the whole aurora Colorado shooting about 4 1/2 years ago. Some people concealed carry 'just in case'.
That being said, someone willing to shoot a man dead over a thrown bowl of popcorn wasn't paying attention in his concealed carry class. I'm personally stunned that the guy was a former police captain, if I had to guess, I would have expected some twitchy methhead.
Having said that, I 100% agree with you - this idiot sounds like he deserves jail.
Wait, I just read an account of this and it was during the previews? So the old guy was complaining that the guy in front was using his phone.... during the previews.... he called the manager before the lights had even been dimmed.
I mean it'll be interesting to see how it plays out and obviously it's pretty hard to judge with limited information, but it does sound a bit like the old guy picked a fight for no good reason (and obviously the dude who got shot shouldn't have bothered arguing with the old guy as well).
It is curious how in a world where you're allowed to shoot someone just because you're afraid they might hurt you.... the elderly suddenly become the most terrifying people, not only do they scare easy but they're often not all with it either.
Ouze wrote: There's video, which isn't 100% ideally situated but still fairly good.
Yeah, while not the best video, my first reaction to it is: the old man could be seeing some serious jail time.
The dead dude was probably a dick, but all he did was toss the popcorn on the old man. The old man quickly drew and shot him after that. Look at 1:02 to 1:06. Popcorn-Bam! He did not appear to be in eminent danger. IMHO, YMMV, OMG, BBQ.
Ouze wrote: Hell, I'm not without some level of sympathy. People texting in the movies are the fething worst.
Chewing crunchy foods with your mouth open is the fething worst!
Ouze wrote: Hell, I'm not without some level of sympathy. People texting in the movies are the fething worst.
You mean during the movie previews before the lights have even dimmed.
I was speaking in general. For me, I think you're good to text until the trailers, and then I think it's irritating but socially acceptable to text during the trailers (I wish people wouldn't because I love the trailers but I also can see why people think it's OK, so whatever).
But actually texting during the movie... I wouldn't say you deserve to get shot, but I definitely wouldn't have a problem with the police dragging you out into the street and hitting you in the mouth with a nightclub, either.
Ouze wrote: Hell, I'm not without some level of sympathy. People texting in the movies are the fething worst.
It sounds like the texting occurred before the movie started and neither man could let it go. If the article you posted earlier is accurate, and Reeves followed a woman who texted in a theater to the restroom to intimidate her, then it sounds like he had some irrational hang up that prevented deescalation.
Regardless of.when the texting happened, escalating and then shooting a person for throwing popcorn is unacceptable. This man thought he would deal with it himself instead of letting the management do their job. I have no sympathy for the man, hit him with the full force of the law.
It seems a bit lazy to believe he escalated and shot the guy for throwing popcorn.
Heck, at a minimum the 'throwing popcorn' actually was the texter standing up to face the shooter, reaching into the shooter's lap grabbing his popcorn then reaching back towards the shooters face to throw the popcorn into it. Once you start coming over the seat and grabbing/throwing into someones face that person very well could become worried about being physically harmed.
CptJake wrote: It seems a bit lazy to believe he escalated and shot the guy for throwing popcorn.
Heck, at a minimum the 'throwing popcorn' actually was the texter standing up to face the shooter, reaching into the shooter's lap grabbing his popcorn then reaching back towards the shooters face to throw the popcorn into it. Once you start coming over the seat and grabbing/throwing into someones face that person very well could become worried about being physically harmed.
To the point of blowing him away however, feth no. You'll get hit with some popcorn, boo-hoo.
And, honestly, if he hits you, still not justification to kill him, IMO. Run away and call the cops. The only time a gun is the correct response is when they are actively trying to kill you.
There was no justification for this whatsoever, and this fether should be in jail for a long time, and never allowed to own a gun ever again.
CptJake wrote: It seems a bit lazy to believe he escalated and shot the guy for throwing popcorn.
Heck, at a minimum the 'throwing popcorn' actually was the texter standing up to face the shooter, reaching into the shooter's lap grabbing his popcorn then reaching back towards the shooters face to throw the popcorn into it. Once you start coming over the seat and grabbing/throwing into someones face that person very well could become worried about being physically harmed.
To the point of blowing him away however, feth no. You'll get hit with some popcorn, boo-hoo.
And, honestly, if he hits you, still not justification to kill him, IMO. Run away and call the cops. The only time a gun is the correct response is when they are actively trying to kill you.
There was no justification for this whatsoever, and this fether should be in jail for a long time, and never allowed to own a gun ever again.
If a guy comes over his seat to beat you senseless, and you are sitting in a movie theater seat, it is a bit difficult to 'run away and call the cops'. And frankly, the whole point of Stand Your Ground laws is you have NO obligation to run away. Period. If he hits you you have no obligation to assume he will only hit you once or twice and does not intend to really hurt you.
The question the judge/jury are looking at is did the shooter have a legitimate fear of being beaten? That is it. If he did, the law should protect him. If not, he will go to trial for murder. You're dislike of guns and belief folks should not have the right to defend themselves have no bearing on the legal issue being looked at.
I suspect this little man goes around being a fething asshat because he has a gun in his pocket to make him feel tall. If he was not allowed to carry then he wouldn't have been such an arrogant little gak. YMMV.
nd, honestly, if he hits you, still not justification to kill him, IMO. Run away and call the cops. The only time a gun is the correct response is when they are actively trying to kill you.
You really should study up on the law before you make such incorrect statements.
EDIT: I should elaborate. The general statement is reasonable fear of imminent 1) death or grievous injury (most jurisdictions); 2) stop the commission of a major crime (usually listed-like rape, major assault); 3) sumbitch was messing your truck at night (Texas, seriously); 4) he needed killin (the so called "wife defense" as told to me by my wife).
greivous harm, or whatever harm standard used in the jurisdiction also follows to the victim - akin to the eggshell rule. As an older victim could indeed be killed or severely harmed you punch an old guy at your own risk bucky.
"Don't mess with old guys. They are too tired to fight and might just kill you instead." -Some old guy.
Freddy Kruger wrote: More to the question, why the feth would you take a gun to a movie theater? Seems like yet another case of a person who thinks using a gun first rather than defusing the situation like any sane person would usage best course of action.
If Thomas Wayne took a gun to the theatre we'd not have the Batman.
CptJake wrote: It seems a bit lazy to believe he escalated and shot the guy for throwing popcorn.
Heck, at a minimum the 'throwing popcorn' actually was the texter standing up to face the shooter, reaching into the shooter's lap grabbing his popcorn then reaching back towards the shooters face to throw the popcorn into it. Once you start coming over the seat and grabbing/throwing into someones face that person very well could become worried about being physically harmed.
To the point of blowing him away however, feth no. You'll get hit with some popcorn, boo-hoo.
And, honestly, if he hits you, still not justification to kill him, IMO. Run away and call the cops. The only time a gun is the correct response is when they are actively trying to kill you.
There was no justification for this whatsoever, and this fether should be in jail for a long time, and never allowed to own a gun ever again.
If a guy comes over his seat to beat you senseless, and you are sitting in a movie theater seat, it is a bit difficult to 'run away and call the cops'. And frankly, the whole point of Stand Your Ground laws is you have NO obligation to run away. Period. If he hits you you have no obligation to assume he will only hit you once or twice and does not intend to really hurt you.
You do have a moral obligation to not kill people however. Especially if all he did was throw fething popcorn in the guy's face.
Stand you ground laws are moronic, and only result in more people dying to BS like this. Defend yourself, sure, but don't act like you're a cowboy in an old western. You can take a little humliation without committing murder.
The question the judge/jury are looking at is did the shooter have a legitimate fear of being beaten? That is it. If he did, the law should protect him. If not, he will go to trial for murder.
And it's pretty obvious he didn't. What you are saying basically amount to the idea that if I get angry and get in someone's face, it should be legal for them to shoot me. And that way lies madness.
You're dislike of guns and belief folks should not have the right to defend themselves have no bearing on the legal issue being looked at.
And those are two things that I did not say anything about. I have no dislike of guns (i never mentioned anything of the sort, nor did I blame this one guns, if this PoS had a knife it probably would have ended up about the same, considering his reaction).
Nor do I think people are not allowed to defend themselves. I didn't say that either. What I said, is that the first response should be to back down, to leave, to get out of the situation, and let people who are trained to deal with this gak, deal with it. And if escape is no an option, that force should be met with equal force, if they aren't coming at you with a knife or something, then don't fething shoot them. If they aren't trying to kill you, don't kill them. It's really fething simple.
Don't forget, this is the land about crying that everyone is getting too wimpy, participation badges, etc. then shooting someone because they *might* hit you.
nd, honestly, if he hits you, still not justification to kill him, IMO. Run away and call the cops. The only time a gun is the correct response is when they are actively trying to kill you.
You really should study up on the law before you make such incorrect statements.
I'm sorry Frazz, where did I say I was talking about law again?
jmurph wrote: Don't forget, this is the land about crying that everyone is getting too wimpy, participation badges, etc. then shooting someone because they *might* hit you.
Because a fist blow might "cave your face in."
Not exactly John Wayne material, eh?
People do die by beatings... if I remember right, something in the tune of 700-800 people per year.
jmurph wrote: Don't forget, this is the land about crying that everyone is getting too wimpy, participation badges, etc. then shooting someone because they *might* hit you.
Because a fist blow might "cave your face in."
Not exactly John Wayne material, eh?
That definition of self defense has been in place for a very long time. It's never been the case in the US that you have to wait for somebody to hit you to defend yourself. And you're ignoring the proper escalation of force. You can defend yourself if you have a reasonable fear of imminent bodily harm but not all imminent threats require a lethal response. You can throw the first punch and still rightly claim you acted in self defense. You can fire the first shot and rightly claim you acted in self defense but the circumstances warranting firing a shot would be different than the ones that warranted a punch being thrown.
nd, honestly, if he hits you, still not justification to kill him, IMO. Run away and call the cops. The only time a gun is the correct response is when they are actively trying to kill you.
You really should study up on the law before you make such incorrect statements.
I'm sorry Frazz, where did I say I was talking about law again?
"cause you're not freaking old? Its very justified. Also if you touch my wife or kids, or some sumbitch messes with my truck at night (I don't have truck), or that TexMex is bad (more of a mercy shot there).
nd, honestly, if he hits you, still not justification to kill him, IMO. Run away and call the cops. The only time a gun is the correct response is when they are actively trying to kill you.
You really should study up on the law before you make such incorrect statements.
I'm sorry Frazz, where did I say I was talking about law again?
"cause you're not freaking old? Its very justified. Also if you touch my wife or kids, or some sumbitch messes with my truck at night (I don't have truck), or that TexMex is bad (more of a mercy shot there).
CptJake wrote: The question the judge/jury are looking at is did the shooter have a legitimate fear of being beaten? That is it.
Even if he instigated and escalated the situation himself?
So if I move to Florida, start picking on people I don't like and when I get scared they're going to beat me so I blow them away I'll be protected by the law? Nice.
nd, honestly, if he hits you, still not justification to kill him, IMO. Run away and call the cops. The only time a gun is the correct response is when they are actively trying to kill you.
You really should study up on the law before you make such incorrect statements.
I'm sorry Frazz, where did I say I was talking about law again?
"cause you're not freaking old? Its very justified. Also if you touch my wife or kids, or some sumbitch messes with my truck at night (I don't have truck), or that TexMex is bad (more of a mercy shot there).
I'm not exactly sure what you just said....
I said its morally justifiable for an old guy to blow away someone illegally physically attacking him.* That however doesn't appear to be what is happening here.
*Also that people who don't like TexMex are undoubtedly cat people and thus not really human.
CptJake wrote: The question the judge/jury are looking at is did the shooter have a legitimate fear of being beaten? That is it.
Even if he instigated and escalated the situation himself?
So if I move to Florida, start picking on people I don't like and when I get scared they're going to beat me so I blow them away I'll be protected by the law? Nice.
No thats not correct. Generally (translation-Florida? Who knows) one cannot be engaged in a criminal activity or generally escalating the situation like that.
nd, honestly, if he hits you, still not justification to kill him, IMO. Run away and call the cops. The only time a gun is the correct response is when they are actively trying to kill you.
You really should study up on the law before you make such incorrect statements.
I'm sorry Frazz, where did I say I was talking about law again?
"cause you're not freaking old? Its very justified. Also if you touch my wife or kids, or some sumbitch messes with my truck at night (I don't have truck), or that TexMex is bad (more of a mercy shot there).
I'm not exactly sure what you just said....
I said its morally justifiable for an old guy to blow away someone illegally physically attacking him.* That however doesn't appear to be what is happening here.
*Also that people who don't like TexMex are undoubtedly cat people and thus not really human.
Which I vehemently disagree with. Unless you have a reasonable belief that they are trying to kill you, you don't kill them. Again, you aren't some cowboy from a John Wayne movie.
CptJake wrote: The question the judge/jury are looking at is did the shooter have a legitimate fear of being beaten? That is it.
Even if he instigated and escalated the situation himself?
So if I move to Florida, start picking on people I don't like and when I get scared they're going to beat me so I blow them away I'll be protected by the law? Nice.
nd, honestly, if he hits you, still not justification to kill him, IMO. Run away and call the cops. The only time a gun is the correct response is when they are actively trying to kill you.
You really should study up on the law before you make such incorrect statements.
I'm sorry Frazz, where did I say I was talking about law again?
"cause you're not freaking old? Its very justified. Also if you touch my wife or kids, or some sumbitch messes with my truck at night (I don't have truck), or that TexMex is bad (more of a mercy shot there).
I'm not exactly sure what you just said....
I said its morally justifiable for an old guy to blow away someone illegally physically attacking him.* That however doesn't appear to be what is happening here.
*Also that people who don't like TexMex are undoubtedly cat people and thus not really human.
Which I vehemently disagree with. Unless you have a reasonable belief that they are trying to kill you, you don't kill them. Again, you aren't some cowboy from a John Wayne movie.
I'm also not some 20 year idiot who thinks fistfights are cool and don't lead to traumatic brain injury (because I have the Xrays to show it).
Moral of the story don't attack an old guy. Don't attack anyone. Its the moral thing, its the legal thing.
CptJake wrote: The question the judge/jury are looking at is did the shooter have a legitimate fear of being beaten? That is it.
Even if he instigated and escalated the situation himself?
So if I move to Florida, start picking on people I don't like and when I get scared they're going to beat me so I blow them away I'll be protected by the law? Nice.
Good luck getting a judge/jury to believe you.
Yeah well it'd be absurd.... though not actually that far from what this guy did (at least on the surface it seems that way). It seems a lot like the old dude did damned near everything possible to provoke a response, panicked and shot the guy.
From the video it looks like the texter was further away from the old guy when he got shot than when he threw the popcorn, so it doesn't even seem like the texter was about to jump over the seat to beat on him.
nd, honestly, if he hits you, still not justification to kill him, IMO. Run away and call the cops. The only time a gun is the correct response is when they are actively trying to kill you.
You really should study up on the law before you make such incorrect statements.
I'm sorry Frazz, where did I say I was talking about law again?
"cause you're not freaking old? Its very justified. Also if you touch my wife or kids, or some sumbitch messes with my truck at night (I don't have truck), or that TexMex is bad (more of a mercy shot there).
I'm not exactly sure what you just said....
I said its morally justifiable for an old guy to blow away someone illegally physically attacking him.* That however doesn't appear to be what is happening here.
*Also that people who don't like TexMex are undoubtedly cat people and thus not really human.
Which I vehemently disagree with. Unless you have a reasonable belief that they are trying to kill you, you don't kill them. Again, you aren't some cowboy from a John Wayne movie.
I'm also not some 20 year idiot who thinks fistfights are cool and don't lead to traumatic brain injury (because I have the Xrays to show it).
Moral of the story don't attack an old guy. Don't attack anyone. Its the moral thing, its the legal thing.
And I don't think fistfights are cool either, violence against those who are not violent is repugnant, but neither is killing people. That's the point.
CptJake wrote: The question the judge/jury are looking at is did the shooter have a legitimate fear of being beaten? That is it.
Even if he instigated and escalated the situation himself?
So if I move to Florida, start picking on people I don't like and when I get scared they're going to beat me so I blow them away I'll be protected by the law? Nice.
Good luck getting a judge/jury to believe you.
Yeah well it'd be absurd.... though not actually that far from what this guy did (at least on the surface it seems that way). It seems a lot like the old dude did damned near everything possible to provoke a response, panicked and shot the guy.
Evidence supports your view and he will likely go to jail (ok anywhere outside Florida, or New Mexico where they just settle issue with Thunderdome).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
And I don't think fistfights are cool either, violence against those who are not violent is repugnant, but neither is killing people. That's the point.
Don't commit a crime then whine about the outcome. If you attack an old man you deserve what you get.
jmurph wrote: Don't forget, this is the land about crying that everyone is getting too wimpy, participation badges, etc. then shooting someone because they *might* hit you.
Because a fist blow might "cave your face in."
Not exactly John Wayne material, eh?
That definition of self defense has been in place for a very long time. It's never been the case in the US that you have to wait for somebody to hit you to defend yourself. And you're ignoring the proper escalation of force. You can defend yourself if you have a reasonable fear of imminent bodily harm but not all imminent threats require a lethal response. You can throw the first punch and still rightly claim you acted in self defense. You can fire the first shot and rightly claim you acted in self defense but the circumstances warranting firing a shot would be different than the ones that warranted a punch being thrown.
I am well acquainted with self defense doctrine. That wasn't my point. My point was that the same crowd who gets all up in arms about the "feminization" of America and how current generations are pretty much giant babies seem to jump to justify the use of lethal force at the slightest provocation. In this thread, there have been several posts pointing out how because he was old it's okay to blow his brains if he thought the guy might smack him. Justifying the shoot before they ever saw the evidence. And, in Florida, I am sure it wouldn't be unlikely to get jurors who feel exactly that way.
Here, the video looks like the deceased grabbed the defendant's popcorn and through it at him, at which point the Defendant immediately shot the deceased and his wife. Who knows how a jury might see it.
I'm sorry if you don't like how law and stare decisis works and that attacking an old guy is legally indefensible. I suggest you move to NYC where the the right of self defense is effectively nonexistent and old picked can be picked on by predators much more easily.
CptJake wrote: It seems a bit lazy to believe he escalated and shot the guy for throwing popcorn.
Heck, at a minimum the 'throwing popcorn' actually was the texter standing up to face the shooter, reaching into the shooter's lap grabbing his popcorn then reaching back towards the shooters face to throw the popcorn into it. Once you start coming over the seat and grabbing/throwing into someones face that person very well could become worried about being physically harmed.
To the point of blowing him away however, feth no. You'll get hit with some popcorn, boo-hoo.
And, honestly, if he hits you, still not justification to kill him, IMO. Run away and call the cops. The only time a gun is the correct response is when they are actively trying to kill you.
There was no justification for this whatsoever, and this fether should be in jail for a long time, and never allowed to own a gun ever again.
If a guy comes over his seat to beat you senseless, and you are sitting in a movie theater seat, it is a bit difficult to 'run away and call the cops'. And frankly, the whole point of Stand Your Ground laws is you have NO obligation to run away. Period. If he hits you you have no obligation to assume he will only hit you once or twice and does not intend to really hurt you.
The question the judge/jury are looking at is did the shooter have a legitimate fear of being beaten? That is it. If he did, the law should protect him. If not, he will go to trial for murder. You're dislike of guns and belief folks should not have the right to defend themselves have no bearing on the legal issue being looked at.
Your defense of this is actually delegitimizing the rationale for a conceal and carry. I get you want to protect the right but some standard has to be in place beyond what the shooter "felt" in the moment. Which let us honestly admit, can be retroactively applied by the shooter and you seemingly will just assume they told the truth.
The man wasn't going to get beaten to death in a movie theater we can throw that arguement right out.
Don't commit a crime then whine about the outcome. If you attack an old man you deserve what you get.
I used to work at a theater. Theater policy is always to warn the text immediately upon receiving a complaint. That old man got into an argument with a guy then went to his car to get his gun, came back, and shot him. There was no threat, and it's only through extravagant expense to the gun lobby that people like that even have chance to walk free.
I'm Canadian, and don't care about making any American legal arguments but the perception that guns keep you safe really is considered laughable here, and we're cowboy as hell.
Walt Wawra, a police officer from Kalamazoo, Michigan, was vacationing in Calgary, Alberta, with his wife Debbie when he encountered a situation that made him reach for his off-duty handgun.
But the weapon wasn't there because he had been told he has "no need to carry one in Canada." So he fired a letter to the Calgary Herald instead to complain about his inability to protect his family from the city's riff raff.
Case in point: While strolling through Calgary's bucolic Nose Hill Park, Wawra and his wife were suddenly confronted by two men who stepped in their path and, "in a very aggressive tone," demanded to know if the couple had "been to the Stampede yet" (the city's annual rodeo, which celebrated its centennial this year).
"We ignored them," Wawra writes, but "the two moved closer, repeating: 'Hey, you been to the Stampede yet?'"
That's when the 20-year police force vet got angry and "quickly moved between these two and my wife, replying, 'Gentle-men, I have no need to talk with you, goodbye.'" Walt and Debbie then continued on their way, leaving the Stampede Brothers behind looking "bewildered."
But what if they had done more than simply ask the same question twice and then move on? What then? Wawra reflects and concludes:
I speculate they did not have good intentions when they approached in such an aggressive, disrespectful and menacing manner. I thank the Lord Jesus Christ they did not pull a weapon of some sort, but rather concluded it was in their best interest to leave us alone.
Would we not expect a uniformed officer to pull his or her weapon to intercede in a life-or-death encounter to protect self, or another? Why then should the expectation be lower for a citizen of Canada or a visitor? Wait, I know - it's because in Canada, only the criminals and the police carry handguns. The Calgary Herald confirmed that Wawra's letter is not a hoax and was in fact written for real by "a real person."
Canadians have taken to responding directly to Wawra's concerns using the Twitter hashtag #NoseHillGentlemen.
"Hey Walt. The 2 men approached you because in #Canada we're friendly to each other," wrote one Twitter user. "Think about it: the #NoseHillGentlemen encounter could've ended with two dead young men because of a psychotically suspicious gun owner," wrote another.
For his part, Calgary's own Charles Bronson remains defiant.
"What concerned me is two young men just approached us and stopped us, stopping us by being in our path, and [began] talking to us without even being welcome to talk to us. They just took it upon themselves to yell at us," Wawra told CBC News, adding that "he should have the right to protect himself if things had escalated."
For the record, those two men were hired by the rodeo to give away free tickets and an American was so upset he didn't get to blow them away in broad daylight in a public park he wrote a series of letters about it.
You guys can have guns without going overboard with it ya know? We got lots of guns. I thought the only thing to fear was fear itself. Instead we have fear to justify all sorts of monstrous actions.
“To lose a child is a parent’s worst nightmare,” he said. “Mr. Dunn, your life is effectively over. … This case seems to exemplify that our society seems to have lost its way, its moral compass. Our thoughts and discussions ought to be about how we should treat one another. It’s not whether we can do something or act in a certain way or whether we have a right to do something, but whether it’s right and necessary and prudent.”
*This post also appears in the two other shooting related threads.*
Some places report the second confrontation started with the shooter leaning forward and instigating another conversation, the one that led to the popcorn throwing and shooting.
If a guy comes over his seat to beat you senseless, and you are sitting in a movie theater seat, it is a bit difficult to 'run away and call the cops'. And frankly, the whole point of Stand Your Ground laws is you have NO obligation to run away. Period. If he hits you you have no obligation to assume he will only hit you once or twice and does not intend to really hurt you.
The question the judge/jury are looking at is did the shooter have a legitimate fear of being beaten? That is it. If he did, the law should protect him. If not, he will go to trial for murder. You're dislike of guns and belief folks should not have the right to defend themselves have no bearing on the legal issue being looked at.
Watch the video. The guy didn't appear to come over his seat. He was standing in front of him, and dropped the popcorn on the old man. The old man immediately shot him.
1. Yes, the angle isn't great.
2. Yes, there is no sound.
But it doesn't look good for the old man.
And for the "Guns are evil" crowd, keep that nonsense out of this. We've been up and down that road. Believe what you want.
Slip, I think that's more of a police officer attitude rather than a gun owner attitude. Most officers aren't like that (I believe), but when you meet one who is, it really makes an impression.
CptJake wrote: It seems a bit lazy to believe he escalated and shot the guy for throwing popcorn.
Heck, at a minimum the 'throwing popcorn' actually was the texter standing up to face the shooter, reaching into the shooter's lap grabbing his popcorn then reaching back towards the shooters face to throw the popcorn into it. Once you start coming over the seat and grabbing/throwing into someones face that person very well could become worried about being physically harmed.
To the point of blowing him away however, feth no. You'll get hit with some popcorn, boo-hoo.
And, honestly, if he hits you, still not justification to kill him, IMO. Run away and call the cops. The only time a gun is the correct response is when they are actively trying to kill you.
There was no justification for this whatsoever, and this fether should be in jail for a long time, and never allowed to own a gun ever again.
If a guy comes over his seat to beat you senseless, and you are sitting in a movie theater seat, it is a bit difficult to 'run away and call the cops'. And frankly, the whole point of Stand Your Ground laws is you have NO obligation to run away. Period. If he hits you you have no obligation to assume he will only hit you once or twice and does not intend to really hurt you.
The question the judge/jury are looking at is did the shooter have a legitimate fear of being beaten? That is it. If he did, the law should protect him. If not, he will go to trial for murder. You're dislike of guns and belief folks should not have the right to defend themselves have no bearing on the legal issue being looked at.
Your defense of this is actually delegitimizing the rationale for a conceal and carry. I get you want to protect the right but some standard has to be in place beyond what the shooter "felt" in the moment. Which let us honestly admit, can be retroactively applied by the shooter and you seemingly will just assume they told the truth.
The man wasn't going to get beaten to death in a movie theater we can throw that arguement right out.
There is a standard and the statutes make it very clear that there has to be a reasonable fear of imminent harm. What constitutes "reasonable"? That's what we have DA's prosecutorial discretion and jury trials to determine. The other thread in here about the guy who shot a kid over playing the car stereo too loud shows that when the reasonable standard isn't met the shooter gets a prison sentence.
“To lose a child is a parent’s worst nightmare,” he said. “Mr. Dunn, your life is effectively over. … This case seems to exemplify that our society seems to have lost its way, its moral compass. Our thoughts and discussions ought to be about how we should treat one another. It’s not whether we can do something or act in a certain way or whether we have a right to do something, but whether it’s right and necessary and prudent.”
*This post also appears in the two other shooting related threads.*
If a guy comes over his seat to beat you senseless, and you are sitting in a movie theater seat, it is a bit difficult to 'run away and call the cops'. And frankly, the whole point of Stand Your Ground laws is you have NO obligation to run away. Period. If he hits you you have no obligation to assume he will only hit you once or twice and does not intend to really hurt you.
The question the judge/jury are looking at is did the shooter have a legitimate fear of being beaten? That is it. If he did, the law should protect him. If not, he will go to trial for murder. You're dislike of guns and belief folks should not have the right to defend themselves have no bearing on the legal issue being looked at.
Watch the video. The guy didn't appear to come over his seat. He was standing in front of him, and dropped the popcorn on the old man. The old man immediately shot him.
1. Yes, the angle isn't great.
2. Yes, there is no sound.
But it doesn't look good for the old man.
And for the "Guns are evil" crowd, keep that nonsense out of this. We've been up and down that road. Believe what you want.
Exactly. This isn't self defense. This is old man got into an argument and capped young guy.
Hopefully this old gakbag gets the rest of his life in prison and this story gets around so all the other wee penis-compensators out there think twice before pulling out their piece.
CptJake wrote: It seems a bit lazy to believe he escalated and shot the guy for throwing popcorn.
Heck, at a minimum the 'throwing popcorn' actually was the texter standing up to face the shooter, reaching into the shooter's lap grabbing his popcorn then reaching back towards the shooters face to throw the popcorn into it. Once you start coming over the seat and grabbing/throwing into someones face that person very well could become worried about being physically harmed.
To the point of blowing him away however, feth no. You'll get hit with some popcorn, boo-hoo.
And, honestly, if he hits you, still not justification to kill him, IMO. Run away and call the cops. The only time a gun is the correct response is when they are actively trying to kill you.
There was no justification for this whatsoever, and this fether should be in jail for a long time, and never allowed to own a gun ever again.
If a guy comes over his seat to beat you senseless, and you are sitting in a movie theater seat, it is a bit difficult to 'run away and call the cops'. And frankly, the whole point of Stand Your Ground laws is you have NO obligation to run away. Period. If he hits you you have no obligation to assume he will only hit you once or twice and does not intend to really hurt you.
The question the judge/jury are looking at is did the shooter have a legitimate fear of being beaten? That is it. If he did, the law should protect him. If not, he will go to trial for murder. You're dislike of guns and belief folks should not have the right to defend themselves have no bearing on the legal issue being looked at.
Your defense of this is actually delegitimizing the rationale for a conceal and carry. I get you want to protect the right but some standard has to be in place beyond what the shooter "felt" in the moment. Which let us honestly admit, can be retroactively applied by the shooter and you seemingly will just assume they told the truth.
The man wasn't going to get beaten to death in a movie theater we can throw that arguement right out.
There is a standard and the statutes make it very clear that there has to be a reasonable fear of imminent harm. What constitutes "reasonable"? That's what we have DA's prosecutorial discretion and jury trials to determine. The other thread in here about the guy who shot a kid over playing the car stereo too loud shows that when the reasonable standard isn't met the shooter gets a prison sentence.
That is an utterly subjective concept. It is subject to the whims of the jury, the person pulling the trigger and the relative skill of the prosecution and defense. There is no actual standard, just a vague concept of when you can use deadly force and how well you can argue that point.
CptJake wrote: It seems a bit lazy to believe he escalated and shot the guy for throwing popcorn.
Heck, at a minimum the 'throwing popcorn' actually was the texter standing up to face the shooter, reaching into the shooter's lap grabbing his popcorn then reaching back towards the shooters face to throw the popcorn into it. Once you start coming over the seat and grabbing/throwing into someones face that person very well could become worried about being physically harmed.
To the point of blowing him away however, feth no. You'll get hit with some popcorn, boo-hoo.
And, honestly, if he hits you, still not justification to kill him, IMO. Run away and call the cops. The only time a gun is the correct response is when they are actively trying to kill you.
There was no justification for this whatsoever, and this fether should be in jail for a long time, and never allowed to own a gun ever again.
If a guy comes over his seat to beat you senseless, and you are sitting in a movie theater seat, it is a bit difficult to 'run away and call the cops'. And frankly, the whole point of Stand Your Ground laws is you have NO obligation to run away. Period. If he hits you you have no obligation to assume he will only hit you once or twice and does not intend to really hurt you.
The question the judge/jury are looking at is did the shooter have a legitimate fear of being beaten? That is it. If he did, the law should protect him. If not, he will go to trial for murder. You're dislike of guns and belief folks should not have the right to defend themselves have no bearing on the legal issue being looked at.
Your defense of this is actually delegitimizing the rationale for a conceal and carry. I get you want to protect the right but some standard has to be in place beyond what the shooter "felt" in the moment. Which let us honestly admit, can be retroactively applied by the shooter and you seemingly will just assume they told the truth.
The man wasn't going to get beaten to death in a movie theater we can throw that arguement right out.
There is a standard and the statutes make it very clear that there has to be a reasonable fear of imminent harm. What constitutes "reasonable"? That's what we have DA's prosecutorial discretion and jury trials to determine. The other thread in here about the guy who shot a kid over playing the car stereo too loud shows that when the reasonable standard isn't met the shooter gets a prison sentence.
That is an utterly subjective concept. It is subject to the whims of the jury, the person pulling the trigger and the relative skill of the prosecution and defense. There is no actual standard, just a vague concept of when you can use deadly force and how well you can argue that point.
I like how some people are trying to pass this off as a formality of law.
A guy was fething shot and killed, over a fething bit of popcorn and harsh language. Where in all of the insanity does one step back and go "OK, maybe that was a bit extreme" but nope. Most are trying to say "stand your ground" is a solid and infallible law that totally won't cater to wannabe tough guys or chip on your shoulder types.
America, this is why the rest of the world sometimes see your gun laws and views on self defense no better than the fething wild west. Holy gak.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Slip, I think that's more of a police officer attitude rather than a gun owner attitude. Most officers aren't like that (I believe), but when you meet one who is, it really makes an impression.
Let's include the wanna be cops and we'll call it a deal.
If only the camera had been panned a couple degrees to the right there would have been no question one way or the other. Also, what kind of phone did the guy throw at the old man? Some of those things are pretty big and heavy.
As it currently stands it does look like the old man is going away for unnecessary use of deadly force.
I would like to share a somewhat similar thing that happened in college. On one Tuesday night I was walking back home from a 40k game hosted by the local store being held at the college Union building. Things went pretty late that night. The walking path back to my dorm twisted back and around a slightly wooded area.
A few minutes after I reached my dorm room campus cops were knocking at my door asking my why I was stalking a young woman. It turns out that during my walk I had accidentally scared another student. She was 4'11" tall, probably 85 pounds. I was 6'5" tall, 320 pounds, wearing leather, walking unusually fast (as I tend to do), muttering to myself (about how I lost my game), and had a shiny object on my belt (tape measure) that I kept holding onto.
What I thought was a jogger, and barely noticed, was a girl afraid for her safety. It was an honest mistake, and the girl later apologized, but from her point of view I can see how I looked like a credible threat. I was 4 times her size, it was dark, and she was alone. Had I attacked her her options would have been severely limited.
I shared this to point out that to some people what constitutes a "viable" threat is significantly different to what others perceive. He was a frail old man. Getting into a fist fight could have very well been either fatal or crippling.
CptJake wrote: It seems a bit lazy to believe he escalated and shot the guy for throwing popcorn.
Heck, at a minimum the 'throwing popcorn' actually was the texter standing up to face the shooter, reaching into the shooter's lap grabbing his popcorn then reaching back towards the shooters face to throw the popcorn into it. Once you start coming over the seat and grabbing/throwing into someones face that person very well could become worried about being physically harmed.
To the point of blowing him away however, feth no. You'll get hit with some popcorn, boo-hoo.
And, honestly, if he hits you, still not justification to kill him, IMO. Run away and call the cops. The only time a gun is the correct response is when they are actively trying to kill you.
There was no justification for this whatsoever, and this fether should be in jail for a long time, and never allowed to own a gun ever again.
If a guy comes over his seat to beat you senseless, and you are sitting in a movie theater seat, it is a bit difficult to 'run away and call the cops'. And frankly, the whole point of Stand Your Ground laws is you have NO obligation to run away. Period. If he hits you you have no obligation to assume he will only hit you once or twice and does not intend to really hurt you.
The question the judge/jury are looking at is did the shooter have a legitimate fear of being beaten? That is it. If he did, the law should protect him. If not, he will go to trial for murder. You're dislike of guns and belief folks should not have the right to defend themselves have no bearing on the legal issue being looked at.
Your defense of this is actually delegitimizing the rationale for a conceal and carry. I get you want to protect the right but some standard has to be in place beyond what the shooter "felt" in the moment. Which let us honestly admit, can be retroactively applied by the shooter and you seemingly will just assume they told the truth.
The man wasn't going to get beaten to death in a movie theater we can throw that arguement right out.
There is a standard and the statutes make it very clear that there has to be a reasonable fear of imminent harm. What constitutes "reasonable"? That's what we have DA's prosecutorial discretion and jury trials to determine. The other thread in here about the guy who shot a kid over playing the car stereo too loud shows that when the reasonable standard isn't met the shooter gets a prison sentence.
That is an utterly subjective concept. It is subject to the whims of the jury, the person pulling the trigger and the relative skill of the prosecution and defense. There is no actual standard, just a vague concept of when you can use deadly force and how well you can argue that point.
Our standards for self defense haven't changed, they predate stand your ground laws and Florida being a shall issue state. You've always been able to defend yourself from imminent harm prior to any harm being done to you. Use of lethal force has always needed to be evaluated in the context of the specific situation to determine if it was justifiable. That's why we have a criminal justice system to evaluate people's actions and motivations and determine if laws were broken. Do you have a better suggestion for how we should evaluate the justification of lethal force other than determining if it was reasonable for the person employing lethal force had a legitimate imminent threat of bodily harm?
CptJake wrote:You're dislike of guns and belief folks should not have the right to defend themselves have no bearing on the legal issue being looked at.
This is a bit of a strawman. I own 3 rifles, a shotgun, and 3 pistols, have a concealed carry permit, and think that the shooter is a murderer who should spend the rest of his life in prison.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Your 'Stand Your Ground' law is fething ridiculous.
It's a widely misunderstood law, but SYG laws are not, in fact ridiculous. Here are some (simplified) concepts you may not be aware of:
In the US, you can use deadly force if you reasonably believe yourself or someone else are in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury. All of these concepts vary by state, some being looser and some being tighter, but this is the most common phrasing.
Then, there are 3 different scenarios governing use of force across the US.
Duty to retreat: In some states, you are required to attempt to escape. If a home invader breaks into your house, you must attempt to flee your home, and can only use deadly force if you cannot escape. If a guy breaks in and chases you with a knife, in your house, and you shoot him without trying to escape the house, you can be prosecuted.
Castle doctrine: In other states, you have a duty to retreat, but it doesn't apply to your home - you do not have to attempt to flee your home before employing deadly force, again using the same reasonable/imminent criteria. Castle doctrine states commonly extend to your vehicle as well when you're in it. If a guy breaks into your house you have a strong defense against prosecution, if you're being carjacked you can defend yourself, if you see someone stealing your car and you shoot them - you're gonna go to jail. Make sense?
Stand your ground: In SYG states, you do not have a duty to retreat from any place you legally have the right to be. It's not a license to kill, you can't go into your neighbors house and decide to shoot him because "you felt scared". It simply means that if you reasonably believe yourself or someone else are in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury, you don't have to attempt to flee. To be honest I think this is the most reasonable version of a self-defense law.
CptJake wrote: It seems a bit lazy to believe he escalated and shot the guy for throwing popcorn.
Heck, at a minimum the 'throwing popcorn' actually was the texter standing up to face the shooter, reaching into the shooter's lap grabbing his popcorn then reaching back towards the shooters face to throw the popcorn into it. Once you start coming over the seat and grabbing/throwing into someones face that person very well could become worried about being physically harmed.
To the point of blowing him away however, feth no. You'll get hit with some popcorn, boo-hoo.
And, honestly, if he hits you, still not justification to kill him, IMO. Run away and call the cops. The only time a gun is the correct response is when they are actively trying to kill you.
There was no justification for this whatsoever, and this fether should be in jail for a long time, and never allowed to own a gun ever again.
If a guy comes over his seat to beat you senseless, and you are sitting in a movie theater seat, it is a bit difficult to 'run away and call the cops'. And frankly, the whole point of Stand Your Ground laws is you have NO obligation to run away. Period. If he hits you you have no obligation to assume he will only hit you once or twice and does not intend to really hurt you.
The question the judge/jury are looking at is did the shooter have a legitimate fear of being beaten? That is it. If he did, the law should protect him. If not, he will go to trial for murder. You're dislike of guns and belief folks should not have the right to defend themselves have no bearing on the legal issue being looked at.
Your defense of this is actually delegitimizing the rationale for a conceal and carry. I get you want to protect the right but some standard has to be in place beyond what the shooter "felt" in the moment. Which let us honestly admit, can be retroactively applied by the shooter and you seemingly will just assume they told the truth.
The man wasn't going to get beaten to death in a movie theater we can throw that arguement right out.
There is a standard and the statutes make it very clear that there has to be a reasonable fear of imminent harm. What constitutes "reasonable"? That's what we have DA's prosecutorial discretion and jury trials to determine. The other thread in here about the guy who shot a kid over playing the car stereo too loud shows that when the reasonable standard isn't met the shooter gets a prison sentence.
That is an utterly subjective concept. It is subject to the whims of the jury, the person pulling the trigger and the relative skill of the prosecution and defense. There is no actual standard, just a vague concept of when you can use deadly force and how well you can argue that point.
Our standards for self defense haven't changed, they predate stand your ground laws and Florida being a shall issue state. You've always been able to defend yourself from imminent harm prior to any harm being done to you. Use of lethal force has always needed to be evaluated in the context of the specific situation to determine if it was justifiable. That's why we have a criminal justice system to evaluate people's actions and motivations and determine if laws were broken. Do you have a better suggestion for how we should evaluate the justification of lethal force other than determining if it was reasonable for the person employing lethal force had a legitimate imminent threat of bodily harm?
One thing that we don't talk about is that it gives people the wrong mindset. It place emphasis on if you feel relative danger to self, you may take measures to lethally protect yourself as quickly as possible. However, the wrongfulness is only considered after the fact, so after somebody has been murdered that you argue justifiability. In other words SYG laws protect the shooter only. They don't protect anybody else. They don't protect somebody that may not even be the original instigator from being shot because one side felt a little more threaten than the other side.
Say I got in a shouting match with a guy in a bar parking lot. Say other guy strikes me and realizes he will lose the fight. So when I motion to maybe retaliate, I get shot because the other guy now fears for his life. The shooter can now be charged with murder, yes but that isn't a guarantee. SYG laws will give the shooter the benefit of the doubt and the justification, I will just be dead.
This is a flaw in the concept as far as I'm concerned. The only way SYG could be improved is if the shooter must prove innocence rather than be proven guilty, but our law doesn't work that way so to me the law doesn't function very well.
CptJake wrote: It seems a bit lazy to believe he escalated and shot the guy for throwing popcorn.
Heck, at a minimum the 'throwing popcorn' actually was the texter standing up to face the shooter, reaching into the shooter's lap grabbing his popcorn then reaching back towards the shooters face to throw the popcorn into it. Once you start coming over the seat and grabbing/throwing into someones face that person very well could become worried about being physically harmed.
To the point of blowing him away however, feth no. You'll get hit with some popcorn, boo-hoo.
And, honestly, if he hits you, still not justification to kill him, IMO. Run away and call the cops. The only time a gun is the correct response is when they are actively trying to kill you.
There was no justification for this whatsoever, and this fether should be in jail for a long time, and never allowed to own a gun ever again.
If a guy comes over his seat to beat you senseless, and you are sitting in a movie theater seat, it is a bit difficult to 'run away and call the cops'. And frankly, the whole point of Stand Your Ground laws is you have NO obligation to run away. Period. If he hits you you have no obligation to assume he will only hit you once or twice and does not intend to really hurt you.
The question the judge/jury are looking at is did the shooter have a legitimate fear of being beaten? That is it. If he did, the law should protect him. If not, he will go to trial for murder. You're dislike of guns and belief folks should not have the right to defend themselves have no bearing on the legal issue being looked at.
Your defense of this is actually delegitimizing the rationale for a conceal and carry. I get you want to protect the right but some standard has to be in place beyond what the shooter "felt" in the moment. Which let us honestly admit, can be retroactively applied by the shooter and you seemingly will just assume they told the truth.
The man wasn't going to get beaten to death in a movie theater we can throw that arguement right out.
There is a standard and the statutes make it very clear that there has to be a reasonable fear of imminent harm. What constitutes "reasonable"? That's what we have DA's prosecutorial discretion and jury trials to determine. The other thread in here about the guy who shot a kid over playing the car stereo too loud shows that when the reasonable standard isn't met the shooter gets a prison sentence.
That is an utterly subjective concept. It is subject to the whims of the jury, the person pulling the trigger and the relative skill of the prosecution and defense. There is no actual standard, just a vague concept of when you can use deadly force and how well you can argue that point.
Our standards for self defense haven't changed, they predate stand your ground laws and Florida being a shall issue state. You've always been able to defend yourself from imminent harm prior to any harm being done to you. Use of lethal force has always needed to be evaluated in the context of the specific situation to determine if it was justifiable. That's why we have a criminal justice system to evaluate people's actions and motivations and determine if laws were broken. Do you have a better suggestion for how we should evaluate the justification of lethal force other than determining if it was reasonable for the person employing lethal force had a legitimate imminent threat of bodily harm?
One thing that we don't talk about is that it gives people the wrong mindset. It place emphasis on if you feel relative danger to self, you may take measures to lethally protect yourself as quickly as possible. However, the wrongfulness is only considered after the fact, so after somebody has been murdered that you argue justifiability. In other words SYG laws protect the shooter only. They don't protect anybody else. They don't protect somebody that may not even be the original instigator from being shot because one side felt a little more threaten than the other side.
Say I got in a shouting match with a guy in a bar parking lot. Say other guy strikes me and realizes he will lose the fight. So when I motion to maybe retaliate, I get shot because the other guy now fears for his life. The shooter can now be charged with murder, yes but that isn't a guarantee. SYG laws will give the shooter the benefit of the doubt and the justification, I will just be dead.
This is a flaw in the concept as far as I'm concerned. The only way SYG could be improved is if the shooter must prove innocence rather than be proven guilty, but our law doesn't work that way so to me the law doesn't function very well.
No SYG doesn't offer you any legal protection if you instigate an altercation with somebody. SYG removes a legal obligation to flee that's it and it is dependent on the invoker being the victim of a crime. If I am attacked I don't have to flee but I don't have to use force of any kind either if I choose to use force then the justification of the amount of force I use is judged on its own merits independent of the SYG law. Not running away doesn't mean I can use deadly force and it's not legal to pick a fight with somebody and then resort to deadly force if it escalates. The laws are designed to protect the person that is being victimized. I'm not responsible for avoiding a confrontation somebody else chooses to initiate with me. I'm allowed to defend myself from an imminent threat of bodily harm that my attacker chose to create. The laws don't protect the aggressor because the laws only apply to the defender under circumstances that put the aggressor in the wrong.
This whole "he is an old man" argument is ridiculous. I work in a nursing home. I once watched an ex boxer punch a retired navy man/ex merchant marine so hard I thought he broke his jaw. I was pretty sure mine would have been. The guy turned around, spit, then gave it right back to him. You guys act like you hit a certain age and your bones turn to glass. This simply is not true and it is a ridiculous argument to make.
Freddy Kruger wrote: I like how some people are trying to pass this off as a formality of law.
A guy was fething shot and killed, over a fething bit of popcorn and harsh language. Where in all of the insanity does one step back and go "OK, maybe that was a bit extreme" but nope. Most are trying to say "stand your ground" is a solid and infallible law that totally won't cater to wannabe tough guys or chip on your shoulder types.
America, this is why the rest of the world sometimes see your gun laws and views on self defense no better than the fething wild west. Holy gak.
I like how you seem to have read the wrong thread. Now calm the feth down and reread the posts.
I can't really blame people for not understanding how SYG laws actually work. The reporting on them is atrocious, even by our gakky media standards, and they are often intentionally misrepresented by opposing legislators.
I suspect that if you asked people "do you feel that if yourself or someone else is in imminent mortal danger, you are required to try to run away, or you could be prosecuted" a comfortable majority (at least in the US) would find that to be a unreasonable expectation. Yet that's rarely how these laws are actually characterized.
Ouze wrote: I can't really blame people for not understanding how SYG laws actually work. The reporting on them is atrocious, even by our gakky media standards, and they are often intentionally misrepresented by opposing legislators.
I suspect that if you asked people "do you feel that if yourself or someone else is in imminent mortal danger, you are required to try to run away, or you could be prosecuted" a comfortable majority (at least in the US) would find that to be a unreasonable expectation. Yet that's rarely how these laws are actually characterized.
The problem I see with what I'm reading about SYG laws is they put power in to the hands of the defender to make a snap judgement. That judgement might be wrong and they might go to jail for it, but I think criticism is levelled at the idea SYG encourages that in the first place.
This guy might go to jail because he made the wrong judgement, but it doesn't bring back the person he killed so the question comes up why was he the one making the judgement in the first place?
SYG sounds fine when everyone has a reasonable ability to judge the danger of a situation. But people make mistakes and some people might be extra jumpy or maybe watched too much crime drama on HBO or maybe have early stage dementia and at that point giving people a gun and telling them they're allowed to stand their ground if they're in "imminent danger" has made everyone else in the community much less safe. It's not really a comforting thought that after you've been shot, killed and buried over a misunderstanding that maybe 3 years later a judge will decide the person was in the wrong and put them in jail.
All that said I tend to be very middle of the road on the whole gun ownership and gun rights debates. I think it's always going to be a balancing act of individuals' rights vs what the community as a whole wants.
Have you guys even been to a movie theatre lately? With the prices they charge for concession snacks throwing a man's popcorn in his face should be a shootable offense.
Obviously he was badly shaken and traumatized from the armed robbery of buying that popcorn, only to see it thrown in his face before the movie had even started. What sort of sane man wouldn't have just reason to shoot up the place?
AllSeeingSkink wrote: SYG sounds fine when everyone has a reasonable ability to judge the danger of a situation. But people make mistakes and some people might be extra jumpy or maybe watched too much crime drama on HBO or maybe have early stage dementia and at that point giving people a gun and telling them they're allowed to stand their ground if they're in "imminent danger" has made everyone else in the community much less safe. It's not really a comforting thought that after you've been shot, killed and buried over a misunderstanding that maybe 3 years later a judge will decide the person was in the wrong and put them in jail
I'd like to say that I would have no real problem with making it tougher to get a carry permit - at least in my state, it was incredibly easy. I'm a pretty gakky second amendment advocate - I don't have a problem with people carrying, obviously, but I'd also like to know those people were required to take at least some sort of classes on escalation of force, de-escalation, and ffs, maybe show some basic proficiency once in a while.
The issue, though, is that I also don't think that would significantly impact levels of violent crime. The vast majority of homicides in this country are not committed by lawful permit holders. I'm not buying into the fallacy of "as long as something is worse anywhere else, we can't solve any problem" but in a world with limited political will to effect legislation, I can't see it as a useful way forward. After all, this was a retired police officer, a captain who trained SWAT teams - clearly, he would have passed any sort of basic tests you'd hope for to weed out people who psychologically shouldn't have guns, anyway.
stanman wrote: Have you guys even been to a movie theatre lately? With the prices they charge for concession snacks throwing a man's popcorn in his face should be a shootable offense.
Obviously he was badly shaken and traumatized from the armed robbery of buying that popcorn, only to see it thrown in his face before the movie had even started. What sort of sane man wouldn't have just reason to shoot up the place?
Dreadwinter wrote: This whole "he is an old man" argument is ridiculous. I work in a nursing home. I once watched an ex boxer punch a retired navy man/ex merchant marine so hard I thought he broke his jaw. I was pretty sure mine would have been. The guy turned around, spit, then gave it right back to him. You guys act like you hit a certain age and your bones turn to glass. This simply is not true and it is a ridiculous argument to make.
I can list a number of times people in their 70's have broken bones just moving wrong. As a worker in a nursing home, I would imagine you are well familiar with this as well as people's spines and joints giving out.
Oh I understand how SYG laws work. It is flawed though, everyone believes they are reasonable and it's only for a judge or a jury to say otherwise. Experts and lawyers can add testimony or legal arguments and the shooter can offer his account but they don't decide, yet they're told they do in the moment. It all ties into this alternative facts the alt right pushes. The crime rate is the lowest it's ever been but it *feels* like it's bad so it's okay to act like it is. Your life may not be in danger but it *feels* like it is, so it's okay to put others in danger,
On reflection, and re-reading the posts, the newspaper articles and the evidence we have, the shooter has to go to jail for a long long time.
It's crystal clear that the shooter escalated the situation, and as a former policeman of many years, a reasonable person would ask why he didn't try to de-escalate the situation by drawing on his former training or letting cinema management sort it out or even phoning 911.
Yes, he's probably been retired a number of years, but I personally wouldn't expect to see a former policeman 'panicked' because popcorn was thrown at him. He was probably involved in worse than that in his career.
This situation was entirely avoidable, unnecessary, and somebody is dead because of it.
I hope the state of Florida throws the book at him.
Freddy Kruger wrote: I like how some people are trying to pass this off as a formality of law.
A guy was fething shot and killed, over a fething bit of popcorn and harsh language. Where in all of the insanity does one step back and go "OK, maybe that was a bit extreme" but nope. Most are trying to say "stand your ground" is a solid and infallible law that totally won't cater to wannabe tough guys or chip on your shoulder types.
America, this is why the rest of the world sometimes see your gun laws and views on self defense no better than the fething wild west. Holy gak.
"Most"?
Your teachers failed you, particularly your Math and English Teachers.
Most people in this thread have condemned the old man for being a dick and ignored SYG. Only a couple of people bothered to defend SYG, as it is an unnecessary law. Either a shot is justifiable as self defense, or it isn't.
The potential danger of SYG is that it may encourage the escalation of violence by validating people's possible desire not to back down in a tense situation.
Freddy Kruger wrote: I like how some people are trying to pass this off as a formality of law.
A guy was fething shot and killed, over a fething bit of popcorn and harsh language. Where in all of the insanity does one step back and go "OK, maybe that was a bit extreme" but nope. Most are trying to say "stand your ground" is a solid and infallible law that totally won't cater to wannabe tough guys or chip on your shoulder types.
America, this is why the rest of the world sometimes see your gun laws and views on self defense no better than the fething wild west. Holy gak.
"Most"?
Your teachers failed you, particularly your Math and English Teachers.
Most people in this thread have condemned the old man for being a dick and ignored SYG. Only a couple of people bothered to defend SYG, as it is an unnecessary law. Either a shot is justifiable as self defense, or it isn't.
Indeed, I said "most" in error, as a better word would have been either "few" or "a couple". Let my emotions cloud my posting judgment for that post. Besides, I'm just glad that many are calling the old guy out, and the silliness of the SYG law.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: SYG sounds fine when everyone has a reasonable ability to judge the danger of a situation. But people make mistakes and some people might be extra jumpy or maybe watched too much crime drama on HBO or maybe have early stage dementia and at that point giving people a gun and telling them they're allowed to stand their ground if they're in "imminent danger" has made everyone else in the community much less safe. It's not really a comforting thought that after you've been shot, killed and buried over a misunderstanding that maybe 3 years later a judge will decide the person was in the wrong and put them in jail
I'd like to say that I would have no real problem with making it tougher to get a carry permit - at least in my state, it was incredibly easy. I'm a pretty gakky second amendment advocate - I don't have a problem with people carrying, obviously, but I'd also like to know those people were required to take at least some sort of classes on escalation of force, de-escalation, and ffs, maybe show some basic proficiency once in a while.
The issue, though, is that I also don't think that would significantly impact levels of violent crime. The vast majority of homicides in this country are not committed by lawful permit holders. I'm not buying into the fallacy of "as long as something is worse anywhere else, we can't solve any problem" but in a world with limited political will to effect legislation, I can't see it as a useful way forward. After all, this was a retired police officer, a captain who trained SWAT teams - clearly, he would have passed any sort of basic tests you'd hope for to weed out people who psychologically shouldn't have guns, anyway.
Well he is in his 70's, I don't want to be presumptuous but a lot of people start losing it around that age. If this story is true...
CptJake wrote: It seems a bit lazy to believe he escalated and shot the guy for throwing popcorn.
Heck, at a minimum the 'throwing popcorn' actually was the texter standing up to face the shooter, reaching into the shooter's lap grabbing his popcorn then reaching back towards the shooters face to throw the popcorn into it. Once you start coming over the seat and grabbing/throwing into someones face that person very well could become worried about being physically harmed.
To the point of blowing him away however, feth no. You'll get hit with some popcorn, boo-hoo.
And, honestly, if he hits you, still not justification to kill him, IMO. Run away and call the cops. The only time a gun is the correct response is when they are actively trying to kill you.
There was no justification for this whatsoever, and this fether should be in jail for a long time, and never allowed to own a gun ever again.
If a guy comes over his seat to beat you senseless, and you are sitting in a movie theater seat, it is a bit difficult to 'run away and call the cops'. And frankly, the whole point of Stand Your Ground laws is you have NO obligation to run away. Period. If he hits you you have no obligation to assume he will only hit you once or twice and does not intend to really hurt you.
The question the judge/jury are looking at is did the shooter have a legitimate fear of being beaten? That is it. If he did, the law should protect him. If not, he will go to trial for murder. You're dislike of guns and belief folks should not have the right to defend themselves have no bearing on the legal issue being looked at.
Your defense of this is actually delegitimizing the rationale for a conceal and carry. I get you want to protect the right but some standard has to be in place beyond what the shooter "felt" in the moment. Which let us honestly admit, can be retroactively applied by the shooter and you seemingly will just assume they told the truth.
The man wasn't going to get beaten to death in a movie theater we can throw that arguement right out.
There is a standard and the statutes make it very clear that there has to be a reasonable fear of imminent harm. What constitutes "reasonable"? That's what we have DA's prosecutorial discretion and jury trials to determine. The other thread in here about the guy who shot a kid over playing the car stereo too loud shows that when the reasonable standard isn't met the shooter gets a prison sentence.
That is an utterly subjective concept. It is subject to the whims of the jury, the person pulling the trigger and the relative skill of the prosecution and defense. There is no actual standard, just a vague concept of when you can use deadly force and how well you can argue that point.
Our standards for self defense haven't changed, they predate stand your ground laws and Florida being a shall issue state. You've always been able to defend yourself from imminent harm prior to any harm being done to you. Use of lethal force has always needed to be evaluated in the context of the specific situation to determine if it was justifiable. That's why we have a criminal justice system to evaluate people's actions and motivations and determine if laws were broken. Do you have a better suggestion for how we should evaluate the justification of lethal force other than determining if it was reasonable for the person employing lethal force had a legitimate imminent threat of bodily harm?
One thing that we don't talk about is that it gives people the wrong mindset. It place emphasis on if you feel relative danger to self, you may take measures to lethally protect yourself as quickly as possible. However, the wrongfulness is only considered after the fact, so after somebody has been murdered that you argue justifiability. In other words SYG laws protect the shooter only. They don't protect anybody else. They don't protect somebody that may not even be the original instigator from being shot because one side felt a little more threaten than the other side.
Say I got in a shouting match with a guy in a bar parking lot. Say other guy strikes me and realizes he will lose the fight. So when I motion to maybe retaliate, I get shot because the other guy now fears for his life. The shooter can now be charged with murder, yes but that isn't a guarantee. SYG laws will give the shooter the benefit of the doubt and the justification, I will just be dead.
This is a flaw in the concept as far as I'm concerned. The only way SYG could be improved is if the shooter must prove innocence rather than be proven guilty, but our law doesn't work that way so to me the law doesn't function very well.
No SYG doesn't offer you any legal protection if you instigate an altercation with somebody. SYG removes a legal obligation to flee that's it and it is dependent on the invoker being the victim of a crime. If I am attacked I don't have to flee but I don't have to use force of any kind either if I choose to use force then the justification of the amount of force I use is judged on its own merits independent of the SYG law. Not running away doesn't mean I can use deadly force and it's not legal to pick a fight with somebody and then resort to deadly force if it escalates. The laws are designed to protect the person that is being victimized. I'm not responsible for avoiding a confrontation somebody else chooses to initiate with me. I'm allowed to defend myself from an imminent threat of bodily harm that my attacker chose to create. The laws don't protect the aggressor because the laws only apply to the defender under circumstances that put the aggressor in the wrong.
In this particular case we are discussing, SYG is being used to defend the actions of the instigator. So here already we can see its still fairly subjective and how you view the situation. The old man started it, lost control of the situation and then killed somebody and SYG is envoked to justify him killing somebody.The age of the shooter is being used to reinforce the justification of the shoot, he was the instigator but he is old and can't be as aggressive as the person he started the fight with so he had to shoot.
Furthermore, how many people are actually aware of the full extent of the responsibilities of SYG laws? Do they know the whole thing or do they only "remember" the part where you can use lethal force to protect yourself? Not knowing the full law can lead to these discount Rambos. Once they have done what they have done, somebody then has to prove that they were wrong, which can be difficult. You can see the issues with a barely understood law that authorizes somebody to kill somebody if they "feel" they had to and all we can do later is punish after the fact. Yet, we are still essentially encouraging shoot first and ask questions later mentality.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: SYG sounds fine when everyone has a reasonable ability to judge the danger of a situation. But people make mistakes and some people might be extra jumpy or maybe watched too much crime drama on HBO or maybe have early stage dementia and at that point giving people a gun and telling them they're allowed to stand their ground if they're in "imminent danger" has made everyone else in the community much less safe. It's not really a comforting thought that after you've been shot, killed and buried over a misunderstanding that maybe 3 years later a judge will decide the person was in the wrong and put them in jail
I'd like to say that I would have no real problem with making it tougher to get a carry permit - at least in my state, it was incredibly easy. I'm a pretty gakky second amendment advocate - I don't have a problem with people carrying, obviously, but I'd also like to know those people were required to take at least some sort of classes on escalation of force, de-escalation, and ffs, maybe show some basic proficiency once in a while.
The issue, though, is that I also don't think that would significantly impact levels of violent crime. The vast majority of homicides in this country are not committed by lawful permit holders. I'm not buying into the fallacy of "as long as something is worse anywhere else, we can't solve any problem" but in a world with limited political will to effect legislation, I can't see it as a useful way forward. After all, this was a retired police officer, a captain who trained SWAT teams - clearly, he would have passed any sort of basic tests you'd hope for to weed out people who psychologically shouldn't have guns, anyway.
Well he is in his 70's, I don't want to be presumptuous but a lot of people start losing it around that age. If this story is true...
Apologies for bringing the 2nd into the debate, but IMO, it's OT.
We all know the well regulated militia part of the 2nd, so here's my question for American dakka members:
how much training do you have to have before being a gun owner? Obviously it would vary from state to state, but is there mandatory training for gun ownership, especially concealed permit?
By training I also include knowledge of firearm laws in your part of the USA. Is that included in the training?
It seems like some gun owners don't know what SYG is IMO, so perhaps that should be included in the future, and would adhere to the well regulated militia section of the 2nd.
To gain a car licence you need some knowledge of road signs and theory, so it would not be unreasonable to expect gun owners to know gun laws in their state.
We all know the well regulated militia part of the 2nd, so here's my question for American dakka members:
how much training do you have to have before being a gun owner? Obviously it would vary from state to state, but is there mandatory training for gun ownership, especially concealed permit?
By training I also include knowledge of firearm laws in your part of the USA. Is that included in the training?
Man, it is all over the place by state and then it varies again by county. I will tell you how it is in my state and county for a carry permit:
I paid for and registered at a site, where I first had to watch a video on a youtube-like setup. It covered some very rudimentary firearm safety - don't point it at anything you're not planning on shooting, don't pull the trigger until you're ready to shoot, positively identify and know what is behind your target. It also covered the places you're not allowed to bring a gun - courtrooms, federal buildings, or on a snowmobile. That last one is probably state-specific. Then I had to pass a test on that same video, which was 10 questions and I imagine any bright 5 year old could pass. Then I printed a certificate, went down to the sheriff, paid $50 and had a background check, and then i had a concealed carry permit, good for 5 years or so. If I had lined up the timing right I think I could have done it all, including driving time, within about 3 hours.
At no point was I required to know the laws regarding use of deadly force in my state, or even advice about when not to start blasting, nor any really serious safety stuff. I also didn't have to show proficiency at any point whatsoever, or pass a vision test or anything like that. You can take classes for all of those things, obviously, but you asked what was mandatory. I am not a hunter, but my understanding is that for a hunting permit, you are required to take a safety course. Again, nothing to do with getting a carry permit.
You can also just get a permit to acquire in my state, which means you can buy pistols and transport them to and from places when properly secured, but you can't carry one concealed on your body or easily accessible in a vehicle. This cost almost more scaled to time - it's $25 but only 2 years - so I think most people opt for the carry permit.
I'd call my state middle of the road in terms of regulation of firearms. They are much looser in some states, and much tighter in others.
Dreadwinter wrote: This whole "he is an old man" argument is ridiculous. I work in a nursing home. I once watched an ex boxer punch a retired navy man/ex merchant marine so hard I thought he broke his jaw. I was pretty sure mine would have been. The guy turned around, spit, then gave it right back to him. You guys act like you hit a certain age and your bones turn to glass. This simply is not true and it is a ridiculous argument to make.
I can list a number of times people in their 70's have broken bones just moving wrong. As a worker in a nursing home, I would imagine you are well familiar with this as well as people's spines and joints giving out.
Just moving wrong? People in those situations have serious health problems and often time are bed ridden because of their ailment. If you can break a bone just by moving, why would you be at a theatre confronting a man? How did you even walk in to the theater in the first place? How does that apply to the elder gentleman in this situation?
I am confused as to how you thought that was a legitimate argument.
Dreadwinter wrote: This whole "he is an old man" argument is ridiculous. I work in a nursing home. I once watched an ex boxer punch a retired navy man/ex merchant marine so hard I thought he broke his jaw. I was pretty sure mine would have been. The guy turned around, spit, then gave it right back to him. You guys act like you hit a certain age and your bones turn to glass. This simply is not true and it is a ridiculous argument to make.
I can list a number of times people in their 70's have broken bones just moving wrong. As a worker in a nursing home, I would imagine you are well familiar with this as well as people's spines and joints giving out.
Just moving wrong? People in those situations have serious health problems and often time are bed ridden because of their ailment. If you can break a bone just by moving, why would you be at a theatre confronting a man? How did you even walk in to the theater in the first place? How does that apply to the elder gentleman in this situation?
I am confused as to how you thought that was a legitimate argument.
As I said, it happens. Someone lifting something suddenly has a joint give way, degeneration of the kneck and spine, turning and getting a spiral fracture in the leg, etc. A person doesn't have to be bedridden or an invalid to have these things happen.
From my observations of older friends and relatives, older people are more succeptible. You might have outliers, such as the boxers that were mentioned, but they are very far from the norm.
Here's a list of the most common health problems for the elderly, and who's to say the man in question didn't suffer from one or more of these items? I'm not defending the shooting, mind you, just putting it out there why he thought it might have been justified.
Dreadwinter wrote: This whole "he is an old man" argument is ridiculous. I work in a nursing home. I once watched an ex boxer punch a retired navy man/ex merchant marine so hard I thought he broke his jaw. I was pretty sure mine would have been. The guy turned around, spit, then gave it right back to him. You guys act like you hit a certain age and your bones turn to glass. This simply is not true and it is a ridiculous argument to make.
I can list a number of times people in their 70's have broken bones just moving wrong. As a worker in a nursing home, I would imagine you are well familiar with this as well as people's spines and joints giving out.
Just moving wrong? People in those situations have serious health problems and often time are bed ridden because of their ailment. If you can break a bone just by moving, why would you be at a theatre confronting a man? How did you even walk in to the theater in the first place? How does that apply to the elder gentleman in this situation?
I am confused as to how you thought that was a legitimate argument.
As I said, it happens. Someone lifting something suddenly has a joint give way, degeneration of the kneck and spine, turning and getting a spiral fracture in the leg, etc. A person doesn't have to be bedridden or an invalid to have these things happen.
From my observations of older friends and relatives, older people are more succeptible. You might have outliers, such as the boxers that were mentioned, but they are very far from the norm.
Here's a list of the most common health problems for the elderly, and who's to say the man in question didn't suffer from one or more of these items? I'm not defending the shooting, mind you, just putting it out there why he thought it might have been justified.
Dreadwinter wrote: This whole "he is an old man" argument is ridiculous. I work in a nursing home. I once watched an ex boxer punch a retired navy man/ex merchant marine so hard I thought he broke his jaw. I was pretty sure mine would have been. The guy turned around, spit, then gave it right back to him. You guys act like you hit a certain age and your bones turn to glass. This simply is not true and it is a ridiculous argument to make.
I can list a number of times people in their 70's have broken bones just moving wrong. As a worker in a nursing home, I would imagine you are well familiar with this as well as people's spines and joints giving out.
Just moving wrong? People in those situations have serious health problems and often time are bed ridden because of their ailment. If you can break a bone just by moving, why would you be at a theatre confronting a man? How did you even walk in to the theater in the first place? How does that apply to the elder gentleman in this situation?
I am confused as to how you thought that was a legitimate argument.
As I said, it happens. Someone lifting something suddenly has a joint give way, degeneration of the kneck and spine, turning and getting a spiral fracture in the leg, etc. A person doesn't have to be bedridden or an invalid to have these things happen.
From my observations of older friends and relatives, older people are more succeptible. You might have outliers, such as the boxers that were mentioned, but they are very far from the norm.
Here's a list of the most common health problems for the elderly, and who's to say the man in question didn't suffer from one or more of these items? I'm not defending the shooting, mind you, just putting it out there why he thought it might have been justified.
So you agree with me then? Healthy adults do not break bones just from moving.
I think we are operating on a different definition on what we mean by moving. I do reject your statement that seems to imply elderly people are not more prone to bones or joints giving way than young people.
It depends on the individual. Not all elderly individuals are prone to breaking bones, the ones who are have medical conditions which may cause bones to become brittle and break easier. If we are talking about people breaking bones just from impact, you and I could do the same thing if we were unable to break our fall or land correctly. That is often times the case with the elderly, they are walking, have an unsteady gate and then fall without being able to catch themselves on something or properly break their fall.
Having brittle bones is an entirely different situation and that is caused by serious medical conditions. In these cases they are often bed ridden or non ambulatory for fear of turning and breaking a bone or falling due to an unsteady gait.
Healthy people do not break bones just from moving. No matter the age.
Let's leave aside the fact we seem to have different definitions of the type of movement with which elderly people may break bones, hurt their back or kneck, dislocate of pull something.
It has to be admitted that on average, a great deal more people in the senior citizen age group are more easily and more greatly injured in some fashion by impact, such as being punched, falling, etc.
I'll admit there are outliers in this, but we don't know the shooters' or his wife's' medical condition. If he was worried about getting punched, then it's understandable why he shot.
That being said, it was remarkably poor judgement on his part to participate in an escalation of a non event into a situation where he may have felt he had no other recourse in protecting himself and his wife.
I do wonder at what angle and facing the dead man was at in his chair, to make it so that no one else seems to have been hit.
My reaction is more the sheer insanity of thinking that going to the cinema armed is a reasonable thing to do.
That's your opinion and it's irrelevant to the incident that took place. Florida is a shall issue state any adult that can pass a background check can get a concealed carry permit. The old man who was the shooter is a retired police officer so he would automatically qualify for a concealed carry permit. Florida law allows concealed carry permit holders to carry in movie theaters. Being armed when going to the movie theater in Florida isn't insane it's accepted behavior. The fact that you wouldn't do it doesn't that others shouldn't or aren't allowed to and it certainly doesn't qualify them as being mentally ill. You expressed your opinion simply to disparage anyone who chose to act in a lawful socially acceptable way just because you don't agree with. That's not much of a contribution to the discussion.
Relapse wrote: Let's leave aside the fact we seem to have different definitions of the type of movement with which elderly people may break bones, hurt their back or kneck, dislocate of pull something.
It has to be admitted that on average, a great deal more people in the senior citizen age group are more easily and more greatly injured in some fashion by impact, such as being punched, falling, etc.
I believe that you think we have different definitions for movement, but we do not. I think you got yourself in to an argument and you are trying to hand wave it away by saying we do not see eye to eye. That is not true. A healthy elderly person can do anything you and I can do. Full stop. The idea that just because somebody is elderly, they are suddenly a fragile little thing is absurd. Those who are elderly and are more prone to breaks have health conditions which make breaks easier.
If you fall down there is a chance you can seriously hurt yourself, you could break a leg or a hip just the same as a healthy elderly person. The difference is when you start comparing healthy individuals to unhealthy elderly individuals. Ones who are more susceptible to breaks because they have a condition that causes their bones to become brittle or they have a condition which causes them to be more accident prone.
Sounds like elderly people should be banned from owning a firearm, because the recoil from a shot can leave their wrist shattered and their weakened body won't be able to adequately control the gun to make sure they are aiming in the right place.
I walked into work today and noticed a sign that read "Caution: Wet Floor"
I quietly unbutton my firearm from it's holster and flipped the safety off. If I wasn't safe, no one would be safe.
I stood my ground for what seemed like an hour. A man appeared,I feared he would attempt to wrest control of the situation from me. My hand reached down to draw, but thankfully the unknown possible tresspasser/stalker took his threatening sign down and left.
I sighed a breathe of relief. Truly, if I did not have my gun there that day, who knows how many may have died. Falls are the #1 cause of injury and death in the workplace in the USA, after all.
In that case, wouldn't the more prudent course of action be to find the Janitor and ask him what he's doing in your neighborhood by threateningly following him in your pickup track late at night; "Gey boy what you doing here with that mop?!"
Relapse wrote: Let's leave aside the fact we seem to have different definitions of the type of movement with which elderly people may break bones, hurt their back or kneck, dislocate of pull something.
It has to be admitted that on average, a great deal more people in the senior citizen age group are more easily and more greatly injured in some fashion by impact, such as being punched, falling, etc.
I believe that you think we have different definitions for movement, but we do not. I think you got yourself in to an argument and you are trying to hand wave it away by saying we do not see eye to eye. That is not true. A healthy elderly person can do anything you and I can do. Full stop. The idea that just because somebody is elderly, they are suddenly a fragile little thing is absurd. Those who are elderly and are more prone to breaks have health conditions which make breaks easier.
If you fall down there is a chance you can seriously hurt yourself, you could break a leg or a hip just the same as a healthy elderly person. The difference is when you start comparing healthy individuals to unhealthy elderly individuals. Ones who are more susceptible to breaks because they have a condition that causes their bones to become brittle or they have a condition which causes them to be more accident prone.
I am hand waving away your assertation that older people are overwhelmingly as resilient as young people.
I will admit I'm not entirely sure why this thread has spent so much time discussing the fragility of older people Reeves is claiming he is a delicate old man with arthritis and a bad back.
I think if you're fragile maybe you shouldn't be picking a fight... unless you have a gun and think the stand your ground law is going to have your back. Old dude should have taken his wife's advice and sat somewhere else and left it up to the manager to sort out (Oulson probably would have just stopped texting once the movie had actually started).
Curious about the "enhanced" footage the defence is showing, apparently demonstrating a phone being thrown. I can't see anything in the original footage about a phone being thrown, unless it was thrown before the popcorn?
Um, I've never seen a candy bar with a glowing screen before.
I believe that was the "enhanced" version. So I wasn't sure whether that was actually a glowing screen or that it was enhanced to make it look more like a glowing screen.
We all know the well regulated militia part of the 2nd, so here's my question for American dakka members:
how much training do you have to have before being a gun owner? Obviously it would vary from state to state, but is there mandatory training for gun ownership, especially concealed permit?
By training I also include knowledge of firearm laws in your part of the USA. Is that included in the training?
It seems like some gun owners don't know what SYG is IMO, so perhaps that should be included in the future, and would adhere to the well regulated militia section of the 2nd.
To gain a car licence you need some knowledge of road signs and theory, so it would not be unreasonable to expect gun owners to know gun laws in their state.
I think you are mixing up two different things: Owning a firearm, and carrying a firearm.
You compared buying a firearm to buying a car, and brought up licensing. The truth is that you do NOT need insurance, or a license, or any kind of registration to buy or own a car, only to operate it in public. In most cases the same is true for guns.
In most places (some states have different laws) anyone that is a citizen, not a felon, not doing illegal drugs, that can pass a background check, that is at least 18 years-old can buy a rifle. 21 year-olds may buy a pistol. Now, carrying that weapon around is a different matter. A couple states have "constitutional carry laws" so that you may carry that weapon on your person (as long as you stay in that state) without any further training or licensing. Most states have a concealed weapons permitting process. This varies from state to state on how it is implemented. At a minimum there is an educational class that goes over legal and practical issues. Some states add differing levels of marksmanship requirements and more training hours. The advantage of getting a permit, even in those constitutional carry states, is that you MIGHT (depending or reciprocity laws between states) be able to take that weapon across state lines.
Um, I've never seen a candy bar with a glowing screen before.
It was an enhanced version of a nightvision video, wasn't it? The object could have been merely shiny.
True. However by the scale of that thing it was pretty wide compared to length. If it wasn't a smart phone the only thing I can think of would be a king sized Hersey Bar that was unopened.
I also wondered about that. I don't see any sign of the object being thrown at all in the original video. I'm not saying that it was invented for the edited video, but I think they've tinkered with the footage so much it's hard to tell what it actually could have been. I think a shiny candy bar is plausible.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BobtheInquisitor wrote: So, does that mean the elderly should start preemptively shooting those little bastards on heelies? Talk about a mortal danger.
TIL that any elderly person shooting a paperboy is a justified shoot.
That's your opinion and it's irrelevant to the incident that took place. Florida is a shall issue state any adult that can pass a background check can get a concealed carry permit. The old man who was the shooter is a retired police officer so he would automatically qualify for a concealed carry permit. Florida law allows concealed carry permit holders to carry in movie theaters. Being armed when going to the movie theater in Florida isn't insane it's accepted behavior. The fact that you wouldn't do it doesn't that others shouldn't or aren't allowed to and it certainly doesn't qualify them as being mentally ill. You expressed your opinion simply to disparage anyone who chose to act in a lawful socially acceptable way just because you don't agree with. That's not much of a contribution to the discussion.
I'm fairly sure that the argument isn't that everyone who's allowed to do so is insane. The argument is that the society and laws which allow this are.
That's your opinion and it's irrelevant to the incident that took place. Florida is a shall issue state any adult that can pass a background check can get a concealed carry permit. The old man who was the shooter is a retired police officer so he would automatically qualify for a concealed carry permit. Florida law allows concealed carry permit holders to carry in movie theaters. Being armed when going to the movie theater in Florida isn't insane it's accepted behavior. The fact that you wouldn't do it doesn't that others shouldn't or aren't allowed to and it certainly doesn't qualify them as being mentally ill. You expressed your opinion simply to disparage anyone who chose to act in a lawful socially acceptable way just because you don't agree with. That's not much of a contribution to the discussion.
I'm fairly sure that the argument isn't that everyone who's allowed to do so is insane. The argument is that the society and laws which allow this are.
That argument is even more irrelevant and still very subjective. People who lawfully Carr concealed weapons in movie theatre aren't insane but the entire society of the US and the laws in the majority of the states are insane? Society is an aggregate of people society can't be insane only the people in society can be insane. Metaphysical concepts and social constructs don't have mental faculties that can be judged as sane or insane so laws can't be insane either. The post was an irrelevant opinion that was deliberately phrased to be insulting and therefore of no value to the discussion.
d-usa wrote: I don't think that there is anything wrong with thinking that a law is stupid, but being okay with people who do what the law allows them to do.
(I don't think carry laws or SYG laws are stupid, just talking about the general idea regarding laws and people here.)
People can hold any opinion they choose but a swoop and poop post that consists of America's laws are stupid and American society is stupid isn't of any value to the discussion. And by claiming that the laws and society are stupid one is also claiming that the people who wrote the laws and abide by the laws and maintain the societal norms are also stupid because that why the stupid laws and stupid society exist. And it certainly doesn't help the discussion to have posts that declare that people who are for what you're against are insane morons.
Prestor Jon wrote: Metaphysical concepts and social constructs don't have mental faculties that can be judged as sane or insane so laws can't be insane either.
An object doesn't have to have mental faculties to be called insane. The word insane has multiple definitions, not all of them refer to the mental faculties of the object.
Prestor Jon wrote: Metaphysical concepts and social constructs don't have mental faculties that can be judged as sane or insane so laws can't be insane either.
An object doesn't have to have mental faculties to be called insane. The word insane has multiple definitions, not all of them refer to the mental faculties of the object.
Is this going to end with "laws can't be sexist/racist"?
Prestor Jon wrote: Metaphysical concepts and social constructs don't have mental faculties that can be judged as sane or insane so laws can't be insane either.
An object doesn't have to have mental faculties to be called insane. The word insane has multiple definitions, not all of them refer to the mental faculties of the object.
Is this going to end with "laws can't be sexist/racist"?
Wha? I have no idea how you made that leap.
I was just pointing out *laws* can be insane without the members of the society they apply to being insane, because there are definitions of "insane" that don't apply to mental faculties. If I said "GW's prices are insane" that doesn't mean GW prices have a mental faculty that I'm judging, it doesn't mean the people at GW are insane, it doesn't even mean people who buy GW products are insane, it is simply a statement about GW's prices being senseless, poorly reasoned, etc.
Whether they be right or wrong wasn't the discussion I was trying to get in to, but a lot of people think certain American laws are insane.... even some Americans think certain American laws are insane. There's no point getting hung up on it or taking it as a personal insult.
Relapse wrote: Let's leave aside the fact we seem to have different definitions of the type of movement with which elderly people may break bones, hurt their back or kneck, dislocate of pull something.
It has to be admitted that on average, a great deal more people in the senior citizen age group are more easily and more greatly injured in some fashion by impact, such as being punched, falling, etc.
I believe that you think we have different definitions for movement, but we do not. I think you got yourself in to an argument and you are trying to hand wave it away by saying we do not see eye to eye. That is not true. A healthy elderly person can do anything you and I can do. Full stop. The idea that just because somebody is elderly, they are suddenly a fragile little thing is absurd. Those who are elderly and are more prone to breaks have health conditions which make breaks easier.
If you fall down there is a chance you can seriously hurt yourself, you could break a leg or a hip just the same as a healthy elderly person. The difference is when you start comparing healthy individuals to unhealthy elderly individuals. Ones who are more susceptible to breaks because they have a condition that causes their bones to become brittle or they have a condition which causes them to be more accident prone.
I am hand waving away your assertation that older people are overwhelmingly as resilient as young people.
Prestor Jon wrote: Metaphysical concepts and social constructs don't have mental faculties that can be judged as sane or insane so laws can't be insane either.
An object doesn't have to have mental faculties to be called insane. The word insane has multiple definitions, not all of them refer to the mental faculties of the object.
Is this going to end with "laws can't be sexist/racist"?
Wha? I have no idea how you made that leap.
I was just pointing out *laws* can be insane without the members of the society they apply to being insane, because there are definitions of "insane" that don't apply to mental faculties. If I said "GW's prices are insane" that doesn't mean GW prices have a mental faculty that I'm judging, it doesn't mean the people at GW are insane, it doesn't even mean people who buy GW products are insane, it is simply a statement about GW's prices being senseless, poorly reasoned, etc.
Whether they be right or wrong wasn't the discussion I was trying to get in to, but a lot of people think certain American laws are insane.... even some Americans think certain American laws are insane. There's no point getting hung up on it or taking it as a personal insult.
I was agreeing with you. We've seen that kind of argument before. "Miniatures don't have thoughts and feelings, therefore bigtitty Sambo can't be a racist miniature."
Prestor Jon wrote: Metaphysical concepts and social constructs don't have mental faculties that can be judged as sane or insane so laws can't be insane either.
An object doesn't have to have mental faculties to be called insane. The word insane has multiple definitions, not all of them refer to the mental faculties of the object.
Is this going to end with "laws can't be sexist/racist"?
Wha? I have no idea how you made that leap.
I was just pointing out *laws* can be insane without the members of the society they apply to being insane, because there are definitions of "insane" that don't apply to mental faculties. If I said "GW's prices are insane" that doesn't mean GW prices have a mental faculty that I'm judging, it doesn't mean the people at GW are insane, it doesn't even mean people who buy GW products are insane, it is simply a statement about GW's prices being senseless, poorly reasoned, etc.
Whether they be right or wrong wasn't the discussion I was trying to get in to, but a lot of people think certain American laws are insane.... even some Americans think certain American laws are insane. There's no point getting hung up on it or taking it as a personal insult.
I was agreeing with you. We've seen that kind of argument before. "Miniatures don't have thoughts and feelings, therefore bigtitty Sambo can't be a racist miniature."
Ah, my mistake, the sexist/racist thing just caught me by surprise
I think the point is that Europeans, Japanese and most westernised countries population look at the USA and see these various kinds of semi-random shootings -- spree killings, lid-flipping shootings in cinemas, assassination attempts on politicians, accidental shootings by toddlers, senior politicians, dogs and policemen giving gun safety lectures, suicides, crimes, preventions of crimes -- amounting to 10,000+ dead and 20,000 wounded per year.
They look at their own societies where typically there are fewer gun murders per year than there are mass shooting incidents in the USA. They read the stuff from the NRA and pro-gun groups finding any possible reason not to have any control on guns and they think, "America, what on Earth has happened? Here in XXX-land we do as much hunting as we want, we don't afraid of going to the cinema or supermarket or staying at home without a gun to hand. We don't have a high crime rate. We have a much lower murder rate than you. Where did it go wrong for you? Can't you admit you've got a problem with guns?"
I'm just giving a combined Japano-British perspective on it.
Kilkrazy wrote: I think the point is that Europeans, Japanese and most westernised countries population look at the USA and see these various kinds of semi-random shootings -- spree killings, lid-flipping shootings in cinemas, assassination attempts on politicians, accidental shootings by toddlers, senior politicians, dogs and policemen giving gun safety lectures, suicides, crimes, preventions of crimes -- amounting to 10,000+ dead and 20,000 wounded per year.
They look at their own societies where typically there are fewer gun murders per year than there are mass shooting incidents in the USA. They read the stuff from the NRA and pro-gun groups finding any possible reason not to have any control on guns and they think, "America, what on Earth has happened? Here in XXX-land we do as much hunting as we want, we don't afraid of going to the cinema or supermarket or staying at home without a gun to hand. We don't have a high crime rate. We have a much lower murder rate than you. Where did it go wrong for you? Can't you admit you've got a problem with guns?"
I'm just giving a combined Japano-British perspective on it.
From an outsider perspective, it's simply impossible not to picture the US as a country full of gun-toting maniacs.
As for the record, I believe the selection process of police officers tends to be extremely lacking pretty much everywhere. It's a very important, dangerous and demanding job, and not everyone is cut out for it. Instead of going through the effort of making sure anyone getting the badge truly deserves it, it seems they've been giving badges to pretty much anyone who was not fit to do anything else. This seems to have happened everywhere and not just in the US, the problem with the US is that these problems mix with an absolutely insane gun culture, in which apparently drawing out a gun is the natural course of action when you try to solve a problem and find yourself out of ideas.
It's tough reading about things that happen in the US that you'd expect during like a war and then hearing opinions that everything is just working as intended is a pretty terrifying thought.
Kilkrazy wrote: I think the point is that Europeans, Japanese and most westernised countries population look at the USA and see these various kinds of semi-random shootings -- spree killings, lid-flipping shootings in cinemas, assassination attempts on politicians, accidental shootings by toddlers, senior politicians, dogs and policemen giving gun safety lectures, suicides, crimes, preventions of crimes -- amounting to 10,000+ dead and 20,000 wounded per year.
They look at their own societies where typically there are fewer gun murders per year than there are mass shooting incidents in the USA. They read the stuff from the NRA and pro-gun groups finding any possible reason not to have any control on guns and they think, "America, what on Earth has happened? Here in XXX-land we do as much hunting as we want, we don't afraid of going to the cinema or supermarket or staying at home without a gun to hand. We don't have a high crime rate. We have a much lower murder rate than you. Where did it go wrong for you? Can't you admit you've got a problem with guns?"
I'm just giving a combined Japano-British perspective on it.
It is not a regulatory thing it is a cultural thing, Guns in a way represent freedom to a lot of Americans IMHO. That is why is the discussions become heated (and of course the implication to the large fire arm market if stricter regulation would be pushed through would not sit well with certain lobbies)
Off course the way some popcorn is made with ludicrous amounts of caramel could be considered a deadly weapon
So this retired policeman apparently couldn't just hold this guy at gun-point and tell him to freeze rather than just shoot? Put that danger to society in prison.
Frazzled wrote: I'm sorry if you don't like how law and stare decisis works and that attacking an old guy is legally indefensible. I suggest you move to NYC where the the right of self defense is effectively nonexistent and old picked can be picked on by predators much more easily.
Or alternatively move to a civilized country where people don't kill people in movie theater for trivial reasons, and you don't need “self-defense rights”.
Because:
- A) nobody is trying to attack you.
- B) even if someone did, more qualified people are there to do the defense for you.
Kilkrazy wrote: I think the point is that Europeans, Japanese and most westernised countries population look at the USA and see these various kinds of semi-random shootings -- spree killings, lid-flipping shootings in cinemas, assassination attempts on politicians, accidental shootings by toddlers, senior politicians, dogs and policemen giving gun safety lectures, suicides, crimes, preventions of crimes -- amounting to 10,000+ dead and 20,000 wounded per year.
They look at their own societies where typically there are fewer gun murders per year than there are mass shooting incidents in the USA. They read the stuff from the NRA and pro-gun groups finding any possible reason not to have any control on guns and they think, "America, what on Earth has happened? Here in XXX-land we do as much hunting as we want, we don't afraid of going to the cinema or supermarket or staying at home without a gun to hand. We don't have a high crime rate. We have a much lower murder rate than you. Where did it go wrong for you? Can't you admit you've got a problem with guns?"
I'm just giving a combined Japano-British perspective on it.
It's pretty crazy from the point of view of someone familiar with Switzerland. In Switzerland there is a long tradition of “militia”, i.e. almost every citizen being trained militarily and being ready to defend the country if need be. And people are supposed to go home with all their military equipment. So it's a country where there used to be a HUGE number of people with actual war weapon at home. The law was changed and now iirc people still take their weapon home but no ammunition. Basically, it's a country where there are a lot of questions and debate about gun control. But unlike the US it is not considered a major issue and people don't lose their minds about it and we basically never have situations like this where someone goes crazy and shoot someone else and some Swiss people come defending him.
As I've said a bunch of times before, Americans are free to have whatever gun laws they want. But you just need to be honest about what gun proliferation does. The reality is that in all societies at all times there are events that escalate, from a breach of manners up to threats of violence or even in to violence. When one or more parties in those situations have deadly weapons then there's a greater chance of the situation ending with lethal force. It's pretty hard to see how a squabble between two guys in a movie theatre is going to result in a death when both parties are armed with nothing more deadly than Junior Mints.
This is not the only reason the US has a higher murder rate than other developed countries, but it is a significant part of the reason. This is just a basic part of the price of having a lot of guns in society.
Again, this doesn't mean the answer is that guns must be banned. The deaths from alcohol are way higher, but that doesn't mean alcohol is wrong, it certainly doesn't mean alcohol should be banned or even more restricted. It is possible to accept that there is a cost associated with a product, and still think the benefits outweigh the costs, or even if that isn't true, that banning or restricting won't minimise the costs.
My only point in all these gun threads is that people should just start being honest that there is a cost.
sebster wrote: As I've said a bunch of times before, Americans are free to have whatever gun laws they want. But you just need to be honest about what gun proliferation does. The reality is that in all societies at all times there are events that escalate, from a breach of manners up to threats of violence or even in to violence. When one or more parties in those situations have deadly weapons then there's a greater chance of the situation ending with lethal force. It's pretty hard to see how a squabble between two guys in a movie theatre is going to result in a death when both parties are armed with nothing more deadly than Junior Mints.
This is not the only reason the US has a higher murder rate than other developed countries, but it is a significant part of the reason. This is just a basic part of the price of having a lot of guns in society.
Again, this doesn't mean the answer is that guns must be banned. The deaths from alcohol are way higher, but that doesn't mean alcohol is wrong, it certainly doesn't mean alcohol should be banned or even more restricted. It is possible to accept that there is a cost associated with a product, and still think the benefits outweigh the costs, or even if that isn't true, that banning or restricting won't minimise the costs.
My only point in all these gun threads is that people should just start being honest that there is a cost.
Part of the problem, IMO, is that the well of reasoned debate has been poisoned beyond repair by extremists on both sides.
Like a lot of people on dakka, military history and historical wargaming is a hobby of mine, so I often watch gun channels on youtube to see how these old weapons function.
All of the channels I watch are American gun owners and they are decent, sensible people who respect their guns and place a high priority on gun safety and they are willing to debate and compromise when it comes to gun laws/politics etc etc
I suspect that most gun owners in the USA are like this. Even on the anti-gun side you get good people who are reasonable, willing to compromise and are at least willing to sit down and hear what the other side are saying.
Sadly, the fanatics on both sides have put reasonable debate and compromise beyond approach.
On one side we get the 'all gunz are evil crowd.'
and of course, their opposite number 'from my cold dead hands, bring down the gummint.'
Between them, they have conspired to poison the gun debate beyond repair.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Sadly, the fanatics on both sides have put reasonable debate and compromise beyond approach. […] Between them, they have conspired to poison the gun debate beyond repair.
That's exactly what I've been trying to express. As far as I know, nowhere else in the world is there as much hostility between people that believe guns should be more restricted and people that believe guns should be less restricted. And, afaik, that even includes countries that recently had civil wars and where civilian disarmament is therefore a BIG DEAL.
We all know the well regulated militia part of the 2nd, so here's my question for American dakka members:
how much training do you have to have before being a gun owner? Obviously it would vary from state to state, but is there mandatory training for gun ownership, especially concealed permit?
By training I also include knowledge of firearm laws in your part of the USA. Is that included in the training?
It seems like some gun owners don't know what SYG is IMO, so perhaps that should be included in the future, and would adhere to the well regulated militia section of the 2nd.
To gain a car licence you need some knowledge of road signs and theory, so it would not be unreasonable to expect gun owners to know gun laws in their state.
I own guns myself and wholeheartedly think there should be a test and courses you must have to gain a license to own a gun, just like you would car.
We all know the well regulated militia part of the 2nd, so here's my question for American dakka members:
how much training do you have to have before being a gun owner? Obviously it would vary from state to state, but is there mandatory training for gun ownership, especially concealed permit?
By training I also include knowledge of firearm laws in your part of the USA. Is that included in the training?
It seems like some gun owners don't know what SYG is IMO, so perhaps that should be included in the future, and would adhere to the well regulated militia section of the 2nd.
To gain a car licence you need some knowledge of road signs and theory, so it would not be unreasonable to expect gun owners to know gun laws in their state.
I own guns myself and wholeheartedly think there should be a test and courses you must have to gain a license to own a gun, just like you would car.
You don't have a fundamental right to a car. Queso yes.* Firearms yes. Car no.
*One of the terms of Mexico's relinquishment of Texas and enshrined in the Texas Bill of Rights.
We all know the well regulated militia part of the 2nd, so here's my question for American dakka members:
how much training do you have to have before being a gun owner? Obviously it would vary from state to state, but is there mandatory training for gun ownership, especially concealed permit?
By training I also include knowledge of firearm laws in your part of the USA. Is that included in the training?
It seems like some gun owners don't know what SYG is IMO, so perhaps that should be included in the future, and would adhere to the well regulated militia section of the 2nd.
To gain a car licence you need some knowledge of road signs and theory, so it would not be unreasonable to expect gun owners to know gun laws in their state.
I own guns myself and wholeheartedly think there should be a test and courses you must have to gain a license to own a gun, just like you would car.
You don't have a fundamental right to a car.
Queso yes.*
Firearms yes.
Car no.
*One of the terms of Mexico's relinquishment of Texas and enshrined in the Texas Bill of Rights.
IMO that is an idiotic stance to take when we are just handing out guns to just about anyone and everyone. I still don't see how someone could be pro-life but so pro-gun to anyone and especially those with mental issues.
Please tell me where guns are being handed out to anyone and everyone, I'm on the lookout for a new 1911 and AK and the budget is a bit tight this year.
Nostromodamus wrote: Please tell me where guns are being handed out to anyone and everyone, I'm on the lookout for a new 1911 and AK and the budget is a bit tight this year.
1911 is a $900 gun, i know because I own a Kimber. There are many guns that are less than half that cost. Gun shows and all.
Nostromodamus wrote: Please tell me where guns are being handed out to anyone and everyone, I'm on the lookout for a new 1911 and AK and the budget is a bit tight this year.
1911 is a $900 gun, i know because I own a Kimber. There are many guns that are less than half that cost. Gun shows and all.
Nostromodamus wrote: Please tell me where guns are being handed out to anyone and everyone, I'm on the lookout for a new 1911 and AK and the budget is a bit tight this year.
1911 is a $900 gun, i know because I own a Kimber. There are many guns that are less than half that cost. Gun shows and all.
I'm well aware, but you seemed to know of a place that was giving them away to anyone that wanted one.
Or was that just hyperbole to push the idea of licensing?
We all know the well regulated militia part of the 2nd, so here's my question for American dakka members:
how much training do you have to have before being a gun owner? Obviously it would vary from state to state, but is there mandatory training for gun ownership, especially concealed permit?
By training I also include knowledge of firearm laws in your part of the USA. Is that included in the training?
It seems like some gun owners don't know what SYG is IMO, so perhaps that should be included in the future, and would adhere to the well regulated militia section of the 2nd.
To gain a car licence you need some knowledge of road signs and theory, so it would not be unreasonable to expect gun owners to know gun laws in their state.
I own guns myself and wholeheartedly think there should be a test and courses you must have to gain a license to own a gun, just like you would car.
You don't have a fundamental right to a car.
Queso yes.*
Firearms yes.
Car no.
*One of the terms of Mexico's relinquishment of Texas and enshrined in the Texas Bill of Rights.
IMO that is an idiotic stance to take when we are just handing out guns to just about anyone and everyone. I still don't see how someone could be pro-life but so pro-gun to anyone and especially those with mental issues.
What is an idiotic stance to take? This is pretty basic.
The Rights of the People are innumerable, however certain key ones were specifically noted in the Bill of Rights.
The right to a car is not one of those enumerated rights. While the system was originally done as only granting specific powers to the Federal Government, with FDR and the ACW that has effectively fallen away, such that any right not specifically enumerated is no longer really a right (privacy, right to play Space Invaders, right to a car). However the Right to Bear Arms* was specifically enumerated.
*And presciently the Right to Boogie. Look up Section 27 of Article Two under "the Rights of the People to Get Down and Get Jiggy With It Shall Not Be Infringed, " its written in the margin of the original version and is in actuality the only right actually noted in the original Constitution. Some scholars say that was a just a joke written in Ben Franklin, but those people are lame and have never danced in their lives because they just can't keep a beat.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nostromodamus wrote: Please tell me where guns are being handed out to anyone and everyone, I'm on the lookout for a new 1911 and AK and the budget is a bit tight this year.
The Rights of the People are innumerable, however certain key ones were specifically noted in the Bill of Rights.
The right to a car is not one of those enumerated rights. While the system was originally done as only granting specific powers to the Federal Government, with FDR and the ACW that has effectively fallen away, such that any right not specifically enumerated is no longer really a right (privacy, right to play Space Invaders, right to a car). However the Right to Bear Arms* was specifically enumerated.
Lets be a little fair here though Frazz, at the time of writing the constitution the idea of a car wasn't even conceived. Does the constitution really hold up when you compare the technology between then and now?
The Rights of the People are innumerable, however certain key ones were specifically noted in the Bill of Rights.
The right to a car is not one of those enumerated rights. While the system was originally done as only granting specific powers to the Federal Government, with FDR and the ACW that has effectively fallen away, such that any right not specifically enumerated is no longer really a right (privacy, right to play Space Invaders, right to a car). However the Right to Bear Arms* was specifically enumerated.
Lets be a little fair here though Frazz, at the time of writing the constitution the idea of a car wasn't even conceived. Does the constitution really hold up when you compare the technology between then and now?
Cheers
Andrew
As I noted, the actual constitution took that into account.
Originally, the Fed only had the powers specifically noted in the Constitution, all other rights and duties were at the state level and not to be infringed. Later (thanks Lincoln ) it became defacto that Government has all the rights not specifically protected by the Bill of Rights. Don't blame me, my guys fought against the Evil War of Northern Aggression.
Fraz, you're kind of pointing out why the rest of the world tends to think Americans are a bit.... odd... with their gun fascination. Instead of a real discussion about gun ownership vs car ownership you just point to a 230 year old document. I'm not going to say that 230 year old document is right or wrong, but just pointing to isn't really addressing the discussion of how things might be, it's simply stating the reason why it's already that way.... because of the 230 year old document said so.
If, instead, you used arguments that pointed out why you think guns should have less restriction than cars and how that applies today vs 230 years ago, then the rest of the world would start to view Muricans as less.... odd.
sebster wrote: As I've said a bunch of times before, Americans are free to have whatever gun laws they want. But you just need to be honest about what gun proliferation does. The reality is that in all societies at all times there are events that escalate, from a breach of manners up to threats of violence or even in to violence. When one or more parties in those situations have deadly weapons then there's a greater chance of the situation ending with lethal force. It's pretty hard to see how a squabble between two guys in a movie theatre is going to result in a death when both parties are armed with nothing more deadly than Junior Mints.
This is not the only reason the US has a higher murder rate than other developed countries, but it is a significant part of the reason. This is just a basic part of the price of having a lot of guns in society.
Again, this doesn't mean the answer is that guns must be banned. The deaths from alcohol are way higher, but that doesn't mean alcohol is wrong, it certainly doesn't mean alcohol should be banned or even more restricted. It is possible to accept that there is a cost associated with a product, and still think the benefits outweigh the costs, or even if that isn't true, that banning or restricting won't minimise the costs.
My only point in all these gun threads is that people should just start being honest that there is a cost.
I don't think people shy away from honestly admitting that we're ok with the cost of our freedom and our "gun culture." There are aspects of freedom that are terrifying, dangerous and messy but that doesn't outweigh the benefits of guaranteeing people their right to make their own choices and accept the responsibility of firearm ownership. The vast majority of gun owners take that responsibility seriously and a relative handful of bad actors isn't a good enough reason to take that freedom away. Two things always happen after a mass shooting in the US, a heated debate over gun control and a spike in gun sales. Civilian firearm ownership has been a staple of American society for our entire existence and it's codified into law on the federal, state and local level. It's who we are and who we want to be but for whatever reason other people have difficult accepting that. Instead of accepting cultural differences some people feel the need to shame, mock and insult us for being different so you get heated debates. We're happy with the way we are and don't feel the need to change to be more like country X or whatever and people don't have to like that but they need to accept it.
Frazzled wrote: You don't have a fundamental right to a car.
Queso yes.*
Firearms yes.
Car no.
And there is only Americans to hold those values. Every one else in the world disagree.
(In the far future Communist America, Private Property is abolished… except for GUNS GUNS GUNS!)
Nostromodamus wrote: Please tell me where guns are being handed out to anyone and everyone, I'm on the lookout for a new 1911 and AK and the budget is a bit tight this year.
1911 is a $900 gun, i know because I own a Kimber. There are many guns that are less than half that cost. Gun shows and all.
I'm well aware, but you seemed to know of a place that was giving them away to anyone that wanted one.
Or was that just hyperbole to push the idea of licensing?
I forget no one uses hyperbole to describe anything ever at any time on these threads.
But I digress.
Just because you can't afford your dream gun doesn't stop you from going out an purchasing one dirt cheap from a gun show with minimal effort.
If someone wanted to get a gun today within a short span of time they could. Even if you live in one of the so-called tighter restrictions states. What is to stop you from getting one from a "friend" the next state over, which is usually sometimes an hour or less drive. The accountability is low. For all the people who seem to say they give a rats gak about human life you seem to just hand wave that accountability with it comes to firearms.
Prestor Jon wrote: It's who we are and who we want to be but for whatever reason other people have difficult accepting that. Instead of accepting cultural differences some people feel the need to shame, mock and insult us for being different so you get heated debates.
Yeah, it's all those intolerant, bigoted strangers. I'm sure there are no US citizens that have troubles “accepting cultural differences” and that all those debates are only with foreigners.
In the meantime, Switzerland, who is the third country in the world in term of gun ownership, is mocked by no-one for it. Gasp! How comes? Why don't those intolerant, bigoted strangers mock Switzerland too?
Frankly I think you completely misunderstand why the US is so mocked for it's gun fetish. Switzerland has tons of guns, but no gun fetish.
Nostromodamus wrote: Please tell me where guns are being handed out to anyone and everyone, I'm on the lookout for a new 1911 and AK and the budget is a bit tight this year.
1911 is a $900 gun, i know because I own a Kimber. There are many guns that are less than half that cost. Gun shows and all.
I'm well aware, but you seemed to know of a place that was giving them away to anyone that wanted one.
Or was that just hyperbole to push the idea of licensing?
I forget no one uses hyperbole to describe anything ever at any time on these threads.
But I digress.
Just because you can't afford your dream gun doesn't stop you from going out an purchasing one dirt cheap from a gun show with minimal effort.
If someone wanted to get a gun today within a short span of time they could. Even if you live in one of the so-called tighter restrictions states. What is to stop you from getting one from a "friend" the next state over, which is usually sometimes an hour or less drive. The accountability is low. For all the people who seem to say they give a rats gak about human life you seem to just hand wave that accountability with it comes to firearms.
I wouldn't ask a friend of mine to commit a federal felony and straw purchase a gun for me. The accountability for firearms is the same for anything else, if you choose to commit it crime involving firearms or using firearms then you run the risk of prosecution, prison sentences or even execution. Same as if I commit crimes with any other property I own.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Fraz, you're kind of pointing out why the rest of the world tends to think Americans are a bit.... odd... with their gun fascination. Instead of a real discussion about gun ownership vs car ownership you just point to a 230 year old document.
I'm confused, should we not live by a set of laws? Do you not have laws there or are you too busy running from the native flora and funa (Codex..Australia)?
I'm not going to say that 230 year old document is right or wrong, but just pointing to isn't really addressing the discussion of how things might be, it's simply stating the reason why it's already that way.... because of the 230 year old document said so.
Right. There is a methodology to changing it, and it has been frequently changed. Whats cool is literally none of that has anything to do with this incident, SYG, or self defense.
If, instead, you used arguments that pointed out why you think guns should have less restriction than cars and how that applies today vs 230 years ago, then the rest of the world would start to view Muricans as less.... odd.
Sure.
*Its a fundamental right of all sentient species to self defense.
Frazzled wrote: You don't have a fundamental right to a car.
Queso yes.*
Firearms yes.
Car no.
And there is only Americans to hold those values. Every one else in the world disagree.
(In the far future Communist America, Private Property is abolished… except for GUNS GUNS GUNS!)
Thats because you're subjects, not citizens. Everyone else in the world can suck our FREEDOM.
Prestor Jon wrote: It's who we are and who we want to be but for whatever reason other people have difficult accepting that. Instead of accepting cultural differences some people feel the need to shame, mock and insult us for being different so you get heated debates.
Yeah, it's all those intolerant, bigoted strangers. I'm sure there are no US citizens that have troubles “accepting cultural differences” and that all those debates are only with foreigners.
In the meantime, Switzerland, who is the third country in the world in term of gun ownership, is mocked by no-one for it. Gasp! How comes? Why don't those intolerant, bigoted strangers mock Switzerland too?
Frankly I think you completely misunderstand why the US is so mocked for it's gun fetish. Switzerland has tons of guns, but no gun fetish.
Anyone residing in the US that doesn't want to participate in the culture of civilian firearm ownership is free to abstain. Nobody has to buy a gun or own one. If you want to make posts mocking our choice to embrace the freedom of civilian firearm ownership you can continue to do so but it's unlikely to have any affect on people who are content with the current culture in the US.
Prestor Jon wrote: It's who we are and who we want to be but for whatever reason other people have difficult accepting that. Instead of accepting cultural differences some people feel the need to shame, mock and insult us for being different so you get heated debates.
Yeah, it's all those intolerant, bigoted strangers. I'm sure there are no US citizens that have troubles “accepting cultural differences” and that all those debates are only with foreigners.
In the meantime, Switzerland, who is the third country in the world in term of gun ownership, is mocked by no-one for it. Gasp! How comes? Why don't those intolerant, bigoted strangers mock Switzerland too?
Frankly I think you completely misunderstand why the US is so mocked for it's gun fetish. Switzerland has tons of guns, but no gun fetish.
Who cares, Swedes can't surf. We don't mock you for getting on the internet and mocking other countries that went to the moon when yours didn't....ok maybe some of us do.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Fraz, you're kind of pointing out why the rest of the world tends to think Americans are a bit.... odd... with their gun fascination. Instead of a real discussion about gun ownership vs car ownership you just point to a 230 year old document. I'm not going to say that 230 year old document is right or wrong, but just pointing to isn't really addressing the discussion of how things might be, it's simply stating the reason why it's already that way.... because of the 230 year old document said so.
If, instead, you used arguments that pointed out why you think guns should have less restriction than cars and how that applies today vs 230 years ago, then the rest of the world would start to view Muricans as less.... odd.
The same reasoning holds true today as it did over 2 centuries ago, nobody has to own a gun but the freedom for law abiding citizens to do so is protected. In the last 230 years we haven't found a compelling reason to take away that freedom so we haven't.
Anyone residing in the US that doesn't want to participate in the culture of civilian firearm ownership is free to abstain. Nobody has to buy a gun or own one. If you want to make posts mocking our choice to embrace the freedom of civilian firearm ownership you can continue to do so but it's unlikely to have any affect on people who are content with the current culture in the US.
If you are in a room full of smokers who are all smoking, does it matter if you choose to abstain? Their smoke still impacts you right?
I choose to abstain from owning and carrying a firearm with me. However, I have no idea if the people around me have made the same choice, so I by default have to follow this new "culture" of firearms even if I myself would prefer to not have it in the first place. Therefore, all these other guns around still impacts me a lot. Where does my "choice" have meaning?
I honestly have no idea as I am now getting too far into the deep-end and I need to get back to the kiddie pool before I drown.
Frazzled wrote: I'm confused, should we not live by a set of laws?
I'm pretty sure you should discuss if the set of laws is right (and how you should change it if it isn't) rather than just stop at “This was the law chosen 230 years ago so this is the end of the discussion”.
Frazzled wrote: *Its a fundamental right of all sentient species to self defense.
How so? How does that require guns? How does that not require cars? You can defend yourself with a car in certain situations. You can't defend yourself with a gun in certain situations.
Frazzled wrote: Thats because you're subjects, not citizens. Everyone else in the world can suck our FREEDOM.
I can never tell when you are joking and when you are not. I'm beginning to guess sometimes you voluntarily blur the line so you can say what you really think and then flip-flop to “It was a joke” because despite actually believing it, you told it with a joking tone.
But you have the Electoral College (and Trump), while Switzerland has Popular Initiative. I rest my case .
Prestor Jon wrote: It's who we are and who we want to be but for whatever reason other people have difficult accepting that. Instead of accepting cultural differences some people feel the need to shame, mock and insult us for being different so you get heated debates.
Yeah, it's all those intolerant, bigoted strangers. I'm sure there are no US citizens that have troubles “accepting cultural differences” and that all those debates are only with foreigners.
In the meantime, Switzerland, who is the third country in the world in term of gun ownership, is mocked by no-one for it. Gasp! How comes? Why don't those intolerant, bigoted strangers mock Switzerland too?
Frankly I think you completely misunderstand why the US is so mocked for it's gun fetish. Switzerland has tons of guns, but no gun fetish.
Who cares, Swedes can't surf. We don't mock you for getting on the internet and mocking other countries that went to the moon when yours didn't....ok maybe some of us do.
Swedes are from Sweden. The Swiss are from Switzerland.
Prestor Jon wrote: Civilian firearm ownership has been a staple of American society for our entire existence and it's codified into law on the federal, state and local level. It's who we are and who we want to be but for whatever reason other people have difficult accepting that. Instead of accepting cultural differences some people feel the need to shame, mock and insult us for being different so you get heated debates. We're happy with the way we are and don't feel the need to change to be more like country X or whatever and people don't have to like that but they need to accept it.
I think part of the reason that most of the rest of the world can't get their heads around US gun ownership is how much human life is outweighed by a 200 year old document, especially when the reasoning mentioned in that document is essentially obsolete. Admittedly, we only here about the bad shootings in the US, but as a citizen of somewhere that banned guns after a school shooting (and we had a shotgun), and then recently banned high powered air weapons (which we also had), because it seemed a perfectly valid response, I'm about as pro-gun as you get in this country without being regarded as a nutjob. I've done a bit of target shooting and won some competition medals about 20 years ago.
We don't view the rights for civilians to own firearms over the people that keep getting killed by civilians with firearms. We don't generally feel the need to carry or justify that level of force.
The US constitution says something about being part of a well formed Militia, which I don't see these days, and the arsenal (and training level) of your average gun owner is insignificant against the government you're constitutionally bound to prepare to overthrow.
Even in small scale self defense, it seems to have very mixed results.
So I (and my countrymen) just don't get it. I like guns, but I don't feel the need to try and justify anyone carrying one in public.
I can understand people like Afghan farmers owning guns, because they live in potentially wild frontier towns, but your US frontiers went away hundreds of years ago.
Prestor Jon wrote: Anyone residing in the US that doesn't want to participate in the culture of civilian firearm ownership is free to abstain.
That's a fallacy. They can not buy gun, but they can't not have lunatic crazy old ex-cop gunning them done in a movie theater because of pop-corn. Hence why they want to change this culture. And you know all this, and are being disingenuous.
Prestor Jon wrote: If you want to make posts mocking our choice to embrace the freedom of civilian firearm ownership
That's not what I am mocking. Else I would be mocking Switzerland on this too! What I am “mocking” is how the US has this huge extremely toxic debate on gun ownership. Switzerland regularly has (kinda) healthy debates on gun ownership, I respect that. The US doesn't have anything healthy. Your own post is testament to this…
Frazzled wrote: Who cares, Swedes can't surf. We don't mock you for getting on the internet and mocking other countries that went to the moon when yours didn't....ok maybe some of us do.
I have no idea why you are throwing Swedes into the mix. And last time we spoke about scientific accomplishments you said you were putting me on ignore (which you apparently didn't do). Why bring that particular subject up again?
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Fraz, you're kind of pointing out why the rest of the world tends to think Americans are a bit.... odd... with their gun fascination. Instead of a real discussion about gun ownership vs car ownership you just point to a 230 year old document. I'm not going to say that 230 year old document is right or wrong, but just pointing to isn't really addressing the discussion of how things might be, it's simply stating the reason why it's already that way.... because of the 230 year old document said so.
If, instead, you used arguments that pointed out why you think guns should have less restriction than cars and how that applies today vs 230 years ago, then the rest of the world would start to view Muricans as less.... odd.
They had horses back then (primary means of transportation).
Why wasn't horse ownership enshrined in the Constitution?
I'll tell you why... this whole 'car ownership' debate is ridiculous.
As for "why' we have the 2nd amendment? An armed populace acts as a check against tyranny.
Herzlos wrote: and the arsenal (and training level) of your average gun owner is insignificant against the government you're constitutionally bound to prepare to overthrow.
Which reminds me of the reaction after a few material damage when Milo was prevented from speaking at a university. Apparently you need to overthrow a government you consider unjust, using your guns, but without causing any kind of material damage .
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: As for "why' we have the 2nd amendment? An armed populace acts as a check against tyranny.
Is this a call to go shot Trump in the face? I'm totally taking it as one.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Part of the problem, IMO, is that the well of reasoned debate has been poisoned beyond repair by extremists on both sides.
It isn't extremists on both sides. It's extremists on the pro-gun side, and idiots on the anti-gun side. This doesn't make one side or the other better, but the difference does matter a lot when it comes to understanding how it can be resolved.
Anyone residing in the US that doesn't want to participate in the culture of civilian firearm ownership is free to abstain. Nobody has to buy a gun or own one. If you want to make posts mocking our choice to embrace the freedom of civilian firearm ownership you can continue to do so but it's unlikely to have any affect on people who are content with the current culture in the US.
If you are in a room full of smokers who are all smoking, does it matter if you choose to abstain? Their smoke still impacts you right?
I choose to abstain from owning and carrying a firearm with me. However, I have no idea if the people around me have made the same choice, so I by default have to follow this new "culture" of firearms even if I myself would prefer to not have it in the first place. Therefore, all these other guns around still impacts me a lot. Where does my "choice" have meaning?
I honestly have no idea as I am now getting too far into the deep-end and I need to get back to the kiddie pool before I drown.
Maybe your neighbors own guns, maybe they don't. Are you afraid of your neighbors? Are they bad people? Why does it matter if they are gun owners or not? Some of my neighbors are gun owners too, some of my neighbors are very anti gun and most of my neighbors I don't know if they own guns or not. It's not an issue to me. I cherish my freedom to own firearms so I wouldn't want to take that freedom away from other law abiding citizens. If I didn't want to own a gun I wouldn't feel any peer pressure to get one, it's a personal choice. Owning or not owning a gun doesn't change a person's personality.
If we're both in a room and I'm smoking but you're not you still breath in the smoke from my cigarette so we're both negatively impacted. If we're both in a room together and I'm armed and you're not, neither one of us is harmed by me being armed. If we're both in a room together and one of us decides to try to rob or harm the other then we're going to have a dangerous altercation regardless of whether either of us are armed.
Prestor Jon wrote: If we're both in a room together and one of us decides to try to rob or harm the other then we're going to have a dangerous altercation regardless of whether either of us are armed.
Is it really your opinion that if there was no guns involved, someone would have died in OP's movie theater events?
If not then that's how everyone is affected by the ex-cop owning a gun, and carrying it with him, loaded with ammo.
An armed populace acts as a check against tyranny.
I usually agree with you on a lot of things, whembly, but you're wrong on this, and worst of all, you're forgetting your own nation's history.
Martin Luther King, and others like him such as Rosa Parks, brought down Jim Crow laws, a tyranny against African-Americans, but King didn't use firearms to achieve this goal.
Gandhi gained India's independence from Britain, and the man probably never touched a firearm in his life.
Freedom can and has been won with the gun, but it can be won and has been won without the gun.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Part of the problem, IMO, is that the well of reasoned debate has been poisoned beyond repair by extremists on both sides.
It isn't extremists on both sides. It's extremists on the pro-gun side, and idiots on the anti-gun side. This doesn't make one side or the other better, but the difference does matter a lot when it comes to understanding how it can be resolved.
In my experience, it's a very fine line between extremist and idiot.
Frazzled wrote: You don't have a fundamental right to a car.
Queso yes.*
Firearms yes.
Car no.
By 'fundamental right' you mean by the existing interpretation of the constitution, which is a particularly vague bit of text that has been interpreted very differently in the past. It's funny, because the current interpretation of the constitution gives a fundamental right to abortion, but you don't see pro-gun people talking about that inalienable right.
It's almost as if there's a weird thing that happens in people's heads where interpretations of rights they agree with become fixed in stone forever, while rights they disagree with are things that must be worked on to be overturned.
Prestor Jon wrote: Civilian firearm ownership has been a staple of American society for our entire existence and it's codified into law on the federal, state and local level. It's who we are and who we want to be but for whatever reason other people have difficult accepting that. Instead of accepting cultural differences some people feel the need to shame, mock and insult us for being different so you get heated debates. We're happy with the way we are and don't feel the need to change to be more like country X or whatever and people don't have to like that but they need to accept it.
I think part of the reason that most of the rest of the world can't get their heads around US gun ownership is how much human life is outweighed by a 200 year old document, especially when the reasoning mentioned in that document is essentially obsolete. Admittedly, we only here about the bad shootings in the US, but as a citizen of somewhere that banned guns after a school shooting (and we had a shotgun), and then recently banned high powered air weapons (which we also had), because it seemed a perfectly valid response, I'm about as pro-gun as you get in this country without being regarded as a nutjob. I've done a bit of target shooting and won some competition medals about 20 years ago.
We don't view the rights for civilians to own firearms over the people that keep getting killed by civilians with firearms. We don't generally feel the need to carry or justify that level of force.
The US constitution says something about being part of a well formed Militia, which I don't see these days, and the arsenal (and training level) of your average gun owner is insignificant against the government you're constitutionally bound to prepare to overthrow.
Even in small scale self defense, it seems to have very mixed results.
So I (and my countrymen) just don't get it. I like guns, but I don't feel the need to try and justify anyone carrying one in public.
I can understand people like Afghan farmers owning guns, because they live in potentially wild frontier towns, but your US frontiers went away hundreds of years ago.
Were you planning on murdering children with the shotgun you owned? If not then no children were saved from taking away your right to own that shotgun so what was gained? You hadn't done anything wrong, you weren't a threat to anyone and you lost a right because somebody else with no connection to you committed a heinous crime. I don't see any benefit to that kind of collective punishment that lumps the innocent in with the guilty based on faulty logic. If you do something wrong you can be punished if you don't do anything wrong the govt doesn't have the right to punish you.
And it's not just the US constitution that protects our right to own firearms, most state constitutions also protect that right and many municipal and county authorities are also required to protect that right. It's quite the difficult task to get all of those laws repealed, counteract generations of accepted gun ownership and hundreds of years of social norms all in the name of creating a false sense of security.
An armed populace acts as a check against tyranny.
I usually agree with you on a lot of things, whembly, but you're wrong on this, and worst of all, you're forgetting your own nation's history.
Martin Luther King, and others like him such as Rosa Parks, brought down Jim Crow laws, a tyranny against African-Americans, but King didn't use firearms to achieve this goal.
Gandhi gained India's independence from Britain, and the man probably never touched a firearm in his life.
Freedom can and has been won with the gun, but it can be won and has been won without the gun.
Nope. I was talking about the leadup and drafting for the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Individual right to defend yourself via arms against oppression was very much an important distinction.
Furthermore, I'm NOT saying that firearms is the only way either.
Prestor Jon wrote: It's who we are and who we want to be but for whatever reason other people have difficult accepting that. Instead of accepting cultural differences some people feel the need to shame, mock and insult us for being different so you get heated debates.
Yeah, it's all those intolerant, bigoted strangers. I'm sure there are no US citizens that have troubles “accepting cultural differences” and that all those debates are only with foreigners.
In the meantime, Switzerland, who is the third country in the world in term of gun ownership, is mocked by no-one for it. Gasp! How comes? Why don't those intolerant, bigoted strangers mock Switzerland too?
Frankly I think you completely misunderstand why the US is so mocked for it's gun fetish. Switzerland has tons of guns, but no gun fetish.
Who cares, Swedes can't surf. We don't mock you for getting on the internet and mocking other countries that went to the moon when yours didn't....ok maybe some of us do.
Swedes are from Sweden. The Swiss are from Switzerland.
Prestor Jon wrote: Civilian firearm ownership has been a staple of American society for our entire existence and it's codified into law on the federal, state and local level. It's who we are and who we want to be but for whatever reason other people have difficult accepting that. Instead of accepting cultural differences some people feel the need to shame, mock and insult us for being different so you get heated debates. We're happy with the way we are and don't feel the need to change to be more like country X or whatever and people don't have to like that but they need to accept it.
I think part of the reason that most of the rest of the world can't get their heads around US gun ownership is how much human life is outweighed by a 200 year old document, especially when the reasoning mentioned in that document is essentially obsolete. Admittedly, we only here about the bad shootings in the US, but as a citizen of somewhere that banned guns after a school shooting (and we had a shotgun), and then recently banned high powered air weapons (which we also had), because it seemed a perfectly valid response, I'm about as pro-gun as you get in this country without being regarded as a nutjob. I've done a bit of target shooting and won some competition medals about 20 years ago.
We don't view the rights for civilians to own firearms over the people that keep getting killed by civilians with firearms. We don't generally feel the need to carry or justify that level of force.
The US constitution says something about being part of a well formed Militia, which I don't see these days, and the arsenal (and training level) of your average gun owner is insignificant against the government you're constitutionally bound to prepare to overthrow.
Even in small scale self defense, it seems to have very mixed results.
So I (and my countrymen) just don't get it. I like guns, but I don't feel the need to try and justify anyone carrying one in public.
I can understand people like Afghan farmers owning guns, because they live in potentially wild frontier towns, but your US frontiers went away hundreds of years ago.
An armed populace acts as a check against tyranny.
I usually agree with you on a lot of things, whembly, but you're wrong on this, and worst of all, you're forgetting your own nation's history.
Martin Luther King, and others like him such as Rosa Parks, brought down Jim Crow laws, a tyranny against African-Americans, but King didn't use firearms to achieve this goal.
Gandhi gained India's independence from Britain, and the man probably never touched a firearm in his life.
Freedom can and has been won with the gun, but it can be won and has been won without the gun.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Part of the problem, IMO, is that the well of reasoned debate has been poisoned beyond repair by extremists on both sides.
It isn't extremists on both sides. It's extremists on the pro-gun side, and idiots on the anti-gun side. This doesn't make one side or the other better, but the difference does matter a lot when it comes to understanding how it can be resolved.
In my experience, it's a very fine line between extremist and idiot.
Again, and? What does this have to do with the thread?
Prestor Jon wrote: If we're both in a room together and one of us decides to try to rob or harm the other then we're going to have a dangerous altercation regardless of whether either of us are armed.
Is it really your opinion that if there was no guns involved, someone would have died in OP's movie theater events?
If not then that's how everyone is affected by the ex-cop owning a gun, and carrying it with him, loaded with ammo.
Why are you inventing strawmen?
I stand by my statement, if two people are in a room and one of them decides to try to rob or harm the other then a dangerous altercation will ensue.
Under current Florida law that ex cop was going to have right to carry that gun in a movie theater. If he wasn't armed then obviously he wouldn't have been able to shoot anyone but that's an irrelevant hypothetical. Nobody had the right to prevent the ex cop from carrying if he chose to do so. He did and he also chose to shoot the guy who was texting and got belligerent. The ex cop is now being prosecuted and a trial will determine if he did wrong. That's how our criminal justice system woks, everyone is innocent until proven guilty, everyone gets the benefit of the doubt until they prove that they don't deserve it.
Prestor Jon wrote: I don't think people shy away from honestly admitting that we're ok with the cost of our freedom and our "gun culture." There are aspects of freedom that are terrifying, dangerous and messy but that doesn't outweigh the benefits of guaranteeing people their right to make their own choices and accept the responsibility of firearm ownership.
You mustn't have seen any of the gun debate threads here on dakka. I've entered probably 20 of them, and each time it is to make the same simple point - having all tose guns around means more people are murdered, and more commit suicide, than if the guns weren't there. I get a very hostile response every single time.
The vast majority of gun owners take that responsibility seriously and a relative handful of bad actors isn't a good enough reason to take that freedom away.
I know what you're getting at but I don't quite agree. First up, there's this kind of strange assumption that every gun owner is either responsible, or deadly dangerous. I know you're looking to focus on how responsible most gun owners are, but it actually makes the gun seem more dangerous than it actually is. If some idiot put a loaded gun in a box in the attic... probably nothing bad would ever happen, It'd be a stupid risk by an idiot, but the gun is still an inert object that would need other foolish or unlucky events to even create the chance of a tragedy. It's like claiming we should have cars because most drivers are responsible - actually most drivers are fething idiots, speeding, texting as they drive etc. It's just that despite those things most people still manage to not kill anyone. SImilarly, even when gun owners are reckless it still doesn't lead to death very often, because that's the nature of the product.
Second and probably more importantly, it isn't about the number of responsible vs irresponsible gun owners, because that ignores the weighting of good behaviour vs bad. To return to the car comparison, consider if 99% of drivers were very responsible and obeyed every road rule and never got anyone in danger, ever. The other 1% drove like lunatics and each of them averaged 1 fatal hit and run every day. By your metric the 99:1 ratio would mean we shouldn't punish the majority, but in reality if that 1% was killing thousands every day cars would be banned immediately and everyone would be made to take the train to work.
The actual ratio is total benefit against total cost. Total cost is easy to assess, its however many extra murders and suicides we think is caused by gun proliferation. The benefit is the target shooting hobby tens of millions have, the hunting hobby enjoyed by tens of millions more, and its the benefit of liberty and an individual making his own choice. Those are the factors that must get weighed against one another.
We're happy with the way we are and don't feel the need to change to be more like country X or whatever and people don't have to like that but they need to accept it.
I agree its your decision and should be based on American beliefs and values. Though I don't think we can say America right now is happy with the way you are. The issue blows up a couple of times every year precisely because so many people on both sides are not happy about where the issue is right now.
Prestor Jon wrote: Anyone residing in the US that doesn't want to participate in the culture of civilian firearm ownership is free to abstain.
That's a fallacy. They can not buy gun, but they can't not have lunatic crazy old ex-cop gunning them done in a movie theater because of pop-corn. Hence why they want to change this culture. And you know all this, and are being disingenuous.
Prestor Jon wrote: If you want to make posts mocking our choice to embrace the freedom of civilian firearm ownership
That's not what I am mocking. Else I would be mocking Switzerland on this too! What I am “mocking” is how the US has this huge extremely toxic debate on gun ownership. Switzerland regularly has (kinda) healthy debates on gun ownership, I respect that. The US doesn't have anything healthy. Your own post is testament to this…
What culture? The ex cop isn't indicative of any culture, he's one old man who over reacted to a confrontation over texting in a theater. That's not a reason to punish anyone other than the ex cop. Tens of millions of US citizens responsibly own hundreds of millions of firearms. That's the gun culture, generations of families growing up with guns in the house who view them as tools to use responsibly not some fearsome boogey man.
The only toxic thing in the debate I the way people want to run roughshod over other people's freedom in the name of actions done by others.
Prestor Jon wrote: Nobody had the right to prevent the ex cop from carrying if he chose to do so.
Are you talking about ethics or law? If you are talking about laws, that was some people in the US want to change. If you are talking about ethics, I disagree. Just like I disagree that people have a right to do drunk driving, even though I am totally unaffected by drunk drivers that don't run me over.
Prestor Jon wrote: The ex cop is now being prosecuted and a trial will determine if he did wrong.
Which is entirely different from the ex-cop having had a shouting argument and then everyone going back home angry but safe and unharmed.
If two people are in a room, unarmed, one is less likely to rib the other because they would be on equal footing. Nobody gets in a fist fight to rob a person, the chance of being too injured to flee or losing the fight is too great. Now if one of them has a firearm and they can draw it on the other before they can draw their own, then the robbery would occur.
Dreadwinter wrote: If two people are in a room, unarmed, one is less likely to rib the other because they would be on equal footing. Nobody gets in a fist fight to rob a person, the chance of being too injured to flee or losing the fight is too great. Now if one of them has a firearm and they can draw it on the other before they can draw their own, then the robbery would occur.
You getting this?
But they aren't on an equal footing. One is a young guy, one is a very old guy. The young guy will literally kill the old guy.
Prestor Jon wrote: The ex cop isn't indicative of any culture, he's one old man who over reacted to a confrontation over texting in a theater.
Meh, I wasn't the one to introduce “culture” into the discussion.
Prestor Jon wrote: That's not a reason to punish anyone other than the ex cop.
Punish is how you see it. I know a bunch of people that find the drunk driving laws very annoying. However, they usually don't complain that they are being punished. They understand that the law, which restricts their freedom to drive while drunk, is also protecting them from having accidents with other drunk drivers. They may disagree with the laws because they don't think the benefits are worth the costs (most of them do think the benefits are worth the cost actually), but they don't consider it a punishment.
Prestor Jon wrote: The only toxic thing in the debate I the way people want to run roughshod over other people's freedom in the name of actions done by others.
That's a description fit for tons of other laws and regulations. And yet people don't get all up in arms about those like they do for guns. Because gun fetish.
I'm not allowed to build my own car because other people have made DIY cars that were dangerous. I don't cry about it.
Dreadwinter wrote: If two people are in a room, unarmed, one is less likely to rib the other because they would be on equal footing. Nobody gets in a fist fight to rob a person, the chance of being too injured to flee or losing the fight is too great. Now if one of them has a firearm and they can draw it on the other before they can draw their own, then the robbery would occur.
You getting this?
But they aren't on an equal footing. One is a young guy, one is a very old guy. The young guy will literally kill the old guy.
How do you figure? Do young people always win fights 100% of the time? Why do you assume he will literally kill him?
Dreadwinter wrote: If two people are in a room, unarmed, one is less likely to rib the other because they would be on equal footing. Nobody gets in a fist fight to rob a person, the chance of being too injured to flee or losing the fight is too great. Now if one of them has a firearm and they can draw it on the other before they can draw their own, then the robbery would occur.
You getting this?
But they aren't on an equal footing. One is a young guy, one is a very old guy. The young guy will literally kill the old guy.
Why did the young guy take it physical? The old guy was yelling and told theatre management on him but that's all just words which can be ignored.
The younger man crossed the line when he threw his cell phone then got close enough to grab the popcorn and throw it in the old mans face. The old man was assaulted twice before he retaliated and the younger man was still within physical proximity that he could have continued punching and hitting him as it's not like he was standing a great distance away. As soon as things turned physical they had already escalated beyond a reasonable level and were getting even more heated. Both men should have backed down and just ignored the other but instead they both chose to escalate. It's unfortunate that somebody died but there was a large amount of stupidity being displayed by both of them.
Dreadwinter wrote: If two people are in a room, unarmed, one is less likely to rib the other because they would be on equal footing. Nobody gets in a fist fight to rob a person, the chance of being too injured to flee or losing the fight is too great.
You're joking, right? It happens all the time that someone punches out someone else just to rob them. If you get the first punch in (sucker punch them) or have a large physical advantage, there is seldom any worry "of being too injured to flee or losing the fight". Doesn't require a knife, gun, pipe or any sort of weapon, just fists or feet.
stanman wrote: Why did the young guy take it physical? The old guy was yelling and told theatre management on him but that's all just words which can be ignored.
The younger man crossed the line when he threw his cell phone then got close enough to grab the popcorn and throw it in the old mans face. The old man was assaulted twice before he retaliated and the younger man was still within physical proximity that he could have continued punching and hitting him as it's not like he was standing a great distance away. As soon as things turned physical they had already escalated beyond a reasonable level and were getting even more heated. Both men should have backed down and just ignored the other but instead they both chose to escalate. It's unfortunate that somebody died but there was a large amount of stupidity being displayed by both of them.
Yeah, but one idiot is dead. We can't really punish him any more than that. The other idiot is still alive and in a good position to punish.
Based on the evidence provided I don't like Reeves' chances of getting off. You have his wife saying "that was no cause to shoot anyone." (which Reeves responded to by telling her "you shut your f------ mouth and don't say another word"). You have an off duty deputy saying Reeves said "I'll teach you to throw popcorn at me" before making the shot****.
It makes it difficult to believe the old guy has a genuine claim to SYG. Especially if you consider his role in starting the disagreement over something so trivial and then helping to escalate it (which I'm not sure they do in Florida).
****(which from the video he didn't have time to say between popcorn being thrown and the shooting, so maybe Reeves thought Oulson had already thrown popcorn, and upon hearing it Oulson took it as a dare and grabbed Reeves' popcorn and threw it at him BUT either way 2nd and 3rd witnesses, the nurse and the ex-USAAF guy, claim a similar thing was said, but maybe the order of events is a bit off?)
Dreadwinter wrote: If two people are in a room, unarmed, one is less likely to rib the other because they would be on equal footing. Nobody gets in a fist fight to rob a person, the chance of being too injured to flee or losing the fight is too great. Now if one of them has a firearm and they can draw it on the other before they can draw their own, then the robbery would occur.
You getting this?
But they aren't on an equal footing. One is a young guy, one is a very old guy. The young guy will literally kill the old guy.
How do you figure? Do young people always win fights 100% of the time? Why do you assume he will literally kill him?
Do you in fact know anyone over 20? Are you seriously asking that? Of course there are outliers, but as a rule, a young guy is going to pound an old guy, just as a young guy is going to pound a woman of his same age.
Prestor Jon wrote: I don't think people shy away from honestly admitting that we're ok with the cost of our freedom and our "gun culture." There are aspects of freedom that are terrifying, dangerous and messy but that doesn't outweigh the benefits of guaranteeing people their right to make their own choices and accept the responsibility of firearm ownership.
You mustn't have seen any of the gun debate threads here on dakka. I've entered probably 20 of them, and each time it is to make the same simple point - having all tose guns around means more people are murdered, and more commit suicide, than if the guns weren't there. I get a very hostile response every single time.
The vast majority of gun owners take that responsibility seriously and a relative handful of bad actors isn't a good enough reason to take that freedom away.
I know what you're getting at but I don't quite agree. First up, there's this kind of strange assumption that every gun owner is either responsible, or deadly dangerous. I know you're looking to focus on how responsible most gun owners are, but it actually makes the gun seem more dangerous than it actually is. If some idiot put a loaded gun in a box in the attic... probably nothing bad would ever happen, It'd be a stupid risk by an idiot, but the gun is still an inert object that would need other foolish or unlucky events to even create the chance of a tragedy. It's like claiming we should have cars because most drivers are responsible - actually most drivers are fething idiots, speeding, texting as they drive etc. It's just that despite those things most people still manage to not kill anyone. SImilarly, even when gun owners are reckless it still doesn't lead to death very often, because that's the nature of the product.
Second and probably more importantly, it isn't about the number of responsible vs irresponsible gun owners, because that ignores the weighting of good behaviour vs bad. To return to the car comparison, consider if 99% of drivers were very responsible and obeyed every road rule and never got anyone in danger, ever. The other 1% drove like lunatics and each of them averaged 1 fatal hit and run every day. By your metric the 99:1 ratio would mean we shouldn't punish the majority, but in reality if that 1% was killing thousands every day cars would be banned immediately and everyone would be made to take the train to work.
The actual ratio is total benefit against total cost. Total cost is easy to assess, its however many extra murders and suicides we think is caused by gun proliferation. The benefit is the target shooting hobby tens of millions have, the hunting hobby enjoyed by tens of millions more, and its the benefit of liberty and an individual making his own choice. Those are the factors that must get weighed against one another.
We're happy with the way we are and don't feel the need to change to be more like country X or whatever and people don't have to like that but they need to accept it.
I agree its your decision and should be based on American beliefs and values. Though I don't think we can say America right now is happy with the way you are. The issue blows up a couple of times every year precisely because so many people on both sides are not happy about where the issue is right now.
Very true. Many idiots are also extremists, and many extremists are also idiots.
You post here more frequently than I do so I'll take you word for how hostile the threads get. That's a shame because the debate really boils down to people who are content with the status quo and people who want to change it. In my experience the content people tend to remain steadfast and the people advocating more restrictions tend to become more emotional and heated as their frustration increases.
I agree with your calculus on the pros and cons of gun ownership and I think the benefits outweigh the costs.
I think you overstate the desire for change in the US. It's true that every time there's a mass shooting there is national news coverage of it and the debate over gun control becomes a national story as well but that only lasts for a few weeks. There has yet to be any long lasting impetus to make any real change to the status quo. After the Newtown shooting the state of Connecticut passed a law requiring "assault rifles" to be registered but few people are complying with it and the authorities in CT aren't enforcing it. In NY you had the SAFE Act get passed but some of it has been overturned in court already and it primarily dealt with magazine capacity which really doesn't affect gun ownership or proliferation. While differences remain between states, California and Massachusetts have more restrictive gun laws than Montana and Florida, on a national level we're trending to a more permissive than restrictive society. More states are shall issue states for concealed carry permits than ever before, there are less restrictions on where you can carry concealed weapons, there are more concealed carried permits being issued and more guns being purchased. Permissive states are becoming more permissive and restrictive states are facing more court challenges. Obtaining a concealed carry permit is a very simple process in 35 states and we're not seeing any concerted effort to push back against that. Gun control can be a hot topic in the news cycle but it hasn't been a big issue at the ballot box in my lifetime. It never shows up as being a priority in polling.
Dreadwinter wrote: If two people are in a room, unarmed, one is less likely to rib the other because they would be on equal footing. Nobody gets in a fist fight to rob a person, the chance of being too injured to flee or losing the fight is too great. Now if one of them has a firearm and they can draw it on the other before they can draw their own, then the robbery would occur.
You getting this?
But they aren't on an equal footing. One is a young guy, one is a very old guy. The young guy will literally kill the old guy.
So why did the old guy start the fight?
He didn't. AND HERE IS THE REAL CRUX OF THE CASE FOR THE YOUNGINS.
He didn't "start the fight."
The two were in a verbal exchange. Supposedly the Deceased then threw popcorn at him (technically battery) and then a cell phone (battery) then stood up.
At this point legally the old guy has not "started the fight." in contrast, he is the victim at this point, although what could be termed a "dickbag."
Where the case comes into being is the point after that when the Defendant then draws and shoots. I don't have video so I don't well have video of that, but the issue would be whether the Deceased then performed actions that could reasonably be believed to be a physical attack upon the Defendant. You are also correct here in that his actions prior come into play. Someone posted: "You have an off duty deputy saying Reeves said "I'll teach you to throw popcorn at me" before making the shot****. " yea anythying like that will go harshly against his affirmative claim of self defense.
Had the old guy left before the shooting part and called the PoPo, the Deceased would have gone to jail.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
stanman wrote: Why did the young guy take it physical? The old guy was yelling and told theatre management on him but that's all just words which can be ignored.
The younger man crossed the line when he threw his cell phone then got close enough to grab the popcorn and throw it in the old mans face. The old man was assaulted twice before he retaliated and the younger man was still within physical proximity that he could have continued punching and hitting him as it's not like he was standing a great distance away. As soon as things turned physical they had already escalated beyond a reasonable level and were getting even more heated. Both men should have backed down and just ignored the other but instead they both chose to escalate. It's unfortunate that somebody died but there was a large amount of stupidity being displayed by both of them.
Dreadwinter wrote: If two people are in a room, unarmed, one is less likely to rib the other because they would be on equal footing. Nobody gets in a fist fight to rob a person, the chance of being too injured to flee or losing the fight is too great. Now if one of them has a firearm and they can draw it on the other before they can draw their own, then the robbery would occur.
You getting this?
Two people in a room together are going to behave how they want to behave regardless of the presence of firearms. If the two of us were ever in a room together there's a good chance I'll be armed but that doesn't instill any desire in my to do you harm. Likewise if for some reason we were in the same room and for some reason I desired to try to harm you I could successfully attempt to do so even if I wasn't armed. Carrying a gun didn't change the ex cop's temperament or his willingness to commit violence against another person, it just increased the lethality of the violence. That's the point.
You can actually remain a good fighter until health issues start to weigh you down. My Dad taught me not to get in to fights with old guys because they often can still beat you up pretty good Boxers often keep boxing in to their 40's. George Foreman made a comeback at the age of 38 and kept fighting until 48.
Of course this dude was 70, but I was just responding to the "Do you in fact know anyone over 20?" part
Prestor Jon wrote: The ex cop isn't indicative of any culture, he's one old man who over reacted to a confrontation over texting in a theater.
Meh, I wasn't the one to introduce “culture” into the discussion.
Prestor Jon wrote: That's not a reason to punish anyone other than the ex cop.
Punish is how you see it. I know a bunch of people that find the drunk driving laws very annoying. However, they usually don't complain that they are being punished. They understand that the law, which restricts their freedom to drive while drunk, is also protecting them from having accidents with other drunk drivers. They may disagree with the laws because they don't think the benefits are worth the costs (most of them do think the benefits are worth the cost actually), but they don't consider it a punishment.
Prestor Jon wrote: The only toxic thing in the debate I the way people want to run roughshod over other people's freedom in the name of actions done by others.
That's a description fit for tons of other laws and regulations. And yet people don't get all up in arms about those like they do for guns. Because gun fetish.
I'm not allowed to build my own car because other people have made DIY cars that were dangerous. I don't cry about it.
If you take freedom away from me and leave me with less than I had before that is a punishment. If you do that because of something somebody else did that I had no part in then that would be an unjust punishment. Drunk driving laws don't deprive you of the freedom to drink or the freedom to drive just the ability to mix the two simultaneously. I'm not allowed to consume alcohol while carrying a firearm either but that doesn't infringe on my right to keep and bear arms. I can own and drive a car, I can own and carry a gun I just can't do either while intoxicated. There's a whole host of things I can't legally do while intoxicated but I'm still free to do all of them when I'm sober.
I'm not allowed to build my own car because other people have made DIY cars that were dangerous. I don't cry about it.
No? You cannot buy a stock car (or even a wrecked one), change the motor, change the transmission, change the suspension, change nearly any feature of it you want, all in your own backyard? Or do you think you have to be able to start from scratch for it to be considered 'building your own car"?
I'm not allowed to build my own car because other people have made DIY cars that were dangerous. I don't cry about it.
No? You cannot buy a stock car (or even a wrecked one), change the motor, change the transmission, change the suspension, change nearly any feature of it you want, all in your own backyard? Or do you think you have to be able to start from scratch for it to be considered 'building your own car"?
Don't tell the my neighbors...
My dad tweaked every car he owned. Genghis Connie's little Nissan that was his last car can royally run with the bulls.
Dreadwinter wrote: If two people are in a room, unarmed, one is less likely to rib the other because they would be on equal footing. Nobody gets in a fist fight to rob a person, the chance of being too injured to flee or losing the fight is too great. Now if one of them has a firearm and they can draw it on the other before they can draw their own, then the robbery would occur.
You getting this?
But they aren't on an equal footing. One is a young guy, one is a very old guy. The young guy will literally kill the old guy.
So why did the old guy start the fight?
He didn't. AND HERE IS THE REAL CRUX OF THE CASE FOR THE YOUNGINS.
He didn't "start the fight."
The two were in a verbal exchange. Supposedly the Deceased then threw popcorn at him (technically battery) and then a cell phone (battery) then stood up.
He started the verbal altercation, and continued to act hostile even when he had the option to move or wait for management. Let's not forget he went apeshit over someone texting before the movie had even started, which means he was not even responding to a reasonable provocation. The young man threw popcorn, which isn't legal and didn't help the situation, but from the video the old man shot him so quickly afterwards thst he must have already been reaching for his gun, not in response to "battery". The old man had a history of starting arguments at theaters and escalating them according to Ouze's article; if he had been a reasonable person, there wouldn't have even been a verbal tussle.
And while throwing popcorn might technically be assault, it is a ridiculous justification to shoot. Anyone who has such an itchy trigger and low threshold should not be allowed to own a gun. Besides, throwing popcorn at troublemakers in movie theaters is an established response that should have been expected, at least more so than a gun.
At this point legally the old guy has not "started the fight." in contrast, he is the victim at this point, although what could be termed a "dickbag."
Where the case comes into being is the point after that when the Defendant then draws and shoots. I don't have video so I don't well have video of that, but the issue would be whether the Deceased then performed actions that could reasonably be believed to be a physical attack upon the Defendant. You are also correct here in that his actions prior come into play. Someone posted: "You have an off duty deputy saying Reeves said "I'll teach you to throw popcorn at me" before making the shot****. " yea anythying like that will go harshly against his affirmative claim of self defense.
Had the old guy left before the shooting part and called the PoPo, the Deceased would have gone to jail.
No he wouldn't have. The police would have balked that they were called because someone threw popcorn, and they most likely would have given both sides a terse talking to.
Oh wait, the old one was once a police officer? Yeah, you're right. Popcorn thrower definitely would have gone to jail. Might even have resisted.
To be clear we are in agreement on everything except where it is alleged the Deceased threw a phone at the Defendant. To restate I do not have the video but the CNN article alleges that:
He started the verbal altercation, and continued to act hostile even when he had the option to move or wait for management. Let's not forget he went apeshit over someone texting before the movie had even started, which means he was not even responding to a reasonable provocation.
***yep hence my “dickbag” comment. He has not however assaulted the Deceased.
The young man threw popcorn, which isn't legal and didn't help the situation,
***Agreed, its minor. Throwing the phone is not minor.
but from the video the old man shot him so quickly afterwards thst he must have already been reaching for his gun, not in response to "battery".
***As stated I don’t have the video, but again all that is evidence that he did not have a reasonable fear. Blowing someone’s ass to hell because you are angry is not self defense.
The old man had a history of starting arguments at theaters and escalating them according to Ouze's article; if he had been a reasonable person, there wouldn't have even been a verbal tussle.
***Agreed on both counts and that should come in (again this Florida, I think only evidence introduced by alligators is permitted).
And while throwing popcorn might technically be assault, it is a ridiculous justification to shoot.
***Its no justification at all.
Anyone who has such an itchy trigger and low threshold should not be allowed to own a gun.
***Whats scary is this was a decades long PoPo and PoPo Captain right?
Besides, throwing popcorn at troublemakers in movie theaters is an established response that should have been expected, at least more so than a gun.
***No disagreement. My daughter would seriously beat your ass for it though.
No he wouldn't have. The police would have balked that they were called because someone threw popcorn, and they most likely would have given both sides a terse talking to.
***Popcorn yes, throwing a phone? He’s going to jail.
Oh wait, the old one was once a police officer? Yeah, you're right. Popcorn thrower definitely would have gone to jail. Might even have resisted.
***Now you understand…
Do we know that he threw the phone? The object in the video would be anything small and vaguely rectangular, and it isn't even visible in the unaltered version of the video. Throwing a phone at someone is like throwing your wallet at someone, if in addition to your CC numbers your wallet also had your phone numbers, nude pictures of your spouse, access to your email and social media, an easily shattered screen, and a cost far in excess of any wallet a normal person would buy. Personally, I'm going to need to see some extraordinary evidence before I believe that extraordinary claim.
Prestor Jon wrote: If you take freedom away from me and leave me with less than I had before that is a punishment.
Are you a radical anarchist? Do you want total freedom with no regulation, no rules? Or do you believe that agreeing on rules and laws and a social contract to function as a society is not “punishment” but something very useful and necessary?
Prestor Jon wrote: Drunk driving laws don't deprive you of the freedom to drink or the freedom to drive just the ability to mix the two simultaneously.
So they deprive you of the freedom to mix the two simultaneously. Gun control doesn't deprive you of the right to own, carry or shot with a firearm, just of the right to do so outside of the shooting range (yeah completely simplified for demonstration purpose, there are tons of different ways to do gun control).
Not if that mean I can be endangered by other driving potentially unsafe cars. (Technically, I am allowed to build my own card, but taking the mandatory safety checks would cost so much it makes its as good as impossible)
Drunk driving laws don't deprive you of the freedom to drink or the freedom to drive just the ability to mix the two simultaneously.
What? I'm not sure where you live, by any where I've lived, if you break a drunk driving law they most certainly take away your freedom to drive by either suspending/revoking your license, impounding your car or both.
Unless you count driving illegally/without a license "freedom"
Drunk driving laws don't deprive you of the freedom to drink or the freedom to drive just the ability to mix the two simultaneously.
What? I'm not sure where you live, by any where I've lived, if you break a drunk driving law they most certainly take away your freedom to drive by either suspending/revoking your license, impounding your car or both.
Unless you count driving illegally/without a license "freedom"
If you break those laws yes you are punished but the existence of those laws don't prohibit you from owning and using a car. Most of the commonly suggested gun control measures would result in me being unable to purchase the guns that I already own and would make many of the current guns and magazines I own illegal. Drunk driving laws don't interfere with my ability to own whatever car I want and the cars I currently own aren't categorized as illegal assault cars.
Prestor Jon wrote: If you take freedom away from me and leave me with less than I had before that is a punishment.
Are you a radical anarchist? Do you want total freedom with no regulation, no rules? Or do you believe that agreeing on rules and laws and a social contract to function as a society is not “punishment” but something very useful and necessary?
Prestor Jon wrote: Drunk driving laws don't deprive you of the freedom to drink or the freedom to drive just the ability to mix the two simultaneously.
So they deprive you of the freedom to mix the two simultaneously. Gun control doesn't deprive you of the right to own, carry or shot with a firearm, just of the right to do so outside of the shooting range (yeah completely simplified for demonstration purpose, there are tons of different ways to do gun control).
Not if that mean I can be endangered by other driving potentially unsafe cars. (Technically, I am allowed to build my own card, but taking the mandatory safety checks would cost so much it makes its as good as impossible)
I believe in the existence of a social contract. We currently have one here in the US that allows for citizens to own firearms. We like it enough that we've continually exercised it and protected it throughout our national history.
Numerous measures of gun control that are frequently advocated would indeed deprive me of the right to own several of the guns I already do and would preclude me from making further purchases of guns I would like to own.
I have a few friends that have had a lot of fun (an spent a lot of time and money) rebuilding cars. It's a shame if that's too cost prohibitive where you live.
If someone wanted to get a gun today within a short span of time they could. Even if you live in one of the so-called tighter restrictions states. What is to stop you from getting one from a "friend" the next state over, which is usually sometimes an hour or less drive. The accountability is low. For all the people who seem to say they give a rats gak about human life you seem to just hand wave that accountability with it comes to firearms.
As has been pointed out, what you're talking about in bold is illegal. People can, and do, go to real "Pound you in the Ass" prison (Thanks for that phrase, Office Space!) for doing exactly that.
Prestor Jon wrote: If you take freedom away from me and leave me with less than I had before that is a punishment.
Are you a radical anarchist? Do you want total freedom with no regulation, no rules? Or do you believe that agreeing on rules and laws and a social contract to function as a society is not “punishment” but something very useful and necessary?
Prestor Jon wrote: Drunk driving laws don't deprive you of the freedom to drink or the freedom to drive just the ability to mix the two simultaneously.
So they deprive you of the freedom to mix the two simultaneously. Gun control doesn't deprive you of the right to own, carry or shot with a firearm, just of the right to do so outside of the shooting range (yeah completely simplified for demonstration purpose, there are tons of different ways to do gun control).
Not if that mean I can be endangered by other driving potentially unsafe cars. (Technically, I am allowed to build my own card, but taking the mandatory safety checks would cost so much it makes its as good as impossible)
You do know you effectively can build your own car right?
So they deprive you of the freedom to mix the two simultaneously. Gun control doesn't deprive you of the right to own, carry or shot with a firearm, just of the right to do so outside of the shooting range (yeah completely simplified for demonstration purpose, there are tons of different ways to do gun control).
There is a right to not only keep, but to *bear* arms as well. Likewise, much gun control legislation in the US tends more on the side of banning types of stuff you can own, which is why any whisper of "gun control" often gets vociferous opposition.
Not if that mean I can be endangered by other driving potentially unsafe cars. (Technically, I am allowed to build my own card, but taking the mandatory safety checks would cost so much it makes its as good as impossible)
Here in the US you have every right to build your own car however you like. What you do not have is the unrestricted freedom to drive it on public roads paid for with public funds and maintained by public agencies. But you can build anything you want, the government can't come to your house and arrest your or confiscate your unsafe car, all it can do is say you can't drive it on public roads.
Maybe your neighbors own guns, maybe they don't. Are you afraid of your neighbors? Are they bad people? Why does it matter if they are gun owners or not? Some of my neighbors are gun owners too, some of my neighbors are very anti gun and most of my neighbors I don't know if they own guns or not. It's not an issue to me. I cherish my freedom to own firearms so I wouldn't want to take that freedom away from other law abiding citizens. If I didn't want to own a gun I wouldn't feel any peer pressure to get one, it's a personal choice. Owning or not owning a gun doesn't change a person's personality.
If we're both in a room and I'm smoking but you're not you still breath in the smoke from my cigarette so we're both negatively impacted. If we're both in a room together and I'm armed and you're not, neither one of us is harmed by me being armed. If we're both in a room together and one of us decides to try to rob or harm the other then we're going to have a dangerous altercation regardless of whether either of us are armed.
Thanks for responding. I don;t have super strong feelings on the topic so don't want to get crazy in here.
Why does it matter if my neighbors have guns, or people around me are carrying and I am not and choose not to? Two main reasons:
1. The presence of a gun means the chance of an incident involving a gun goes up, regardless of the intent or skill of the wielder. It went from 0 chance to more than 0.
2. Most fatalities are due to either suicide (self-inflicted) or an accident (Typically not the gun owner). Therefore, choosing to not own or carry a gun does nto necessarily limit me fromt eh impacts of an armed society around me.
That is why I care a bit about an armed society around me, when i make a personal choice to not be part of it.
For example, Capitalism is a consensual system that one has to choose to be a part of, in theory. However, if everyone around me is engaging in Capitalism, I can not simply abstain and choose to do something else if I wish to continue surviving. I have to be part of the system and society around me. It is the same with guns. My personal choice to avoid firearms does not protect me from the societal choice around me to be an armed one. So, where do my rights end and begin and do I actually have any rights by simply choosing to not arm?
Again, I'm really not that bent out of shape over it or anything i was just wondering about the nature of choice and if it was just an illusion in this case. Like i said, getting way out of my depth of thought.
Prestor Jon wrote: We like it enough that we've continually exercised it and protected it throughout our national history.
Come on, don't pretend like the huge debates and controversy around it don't exist. And stop acting like a change to this social contract is a punishment for you. It's a change in the social contract that you don't agree with. And maybe you are right in disagreeing with it. But don't make this into a bigger issue than it is.
Prestor Jon wrote: We like it enough that we've continually exercised it and protected it throughout our national history.
Come on, don't pretend like the huge debates and controversy around it don't exist. And stop acting like a change to this social contract is a punishment for you. It's a change in the social contract that you don't agree with. And maybe you are right in disagreeing with it. But don't make this into a bigger issue than it is.
It's not a major issue. The discussion of gun control waxes and wanes depending on whether or not there's a shooting in the national news cycle. On any given day gun control doesn't register on most people's radar, polling doesn't show it as a priority and exit polling of voters on election days shows it's far down on the list of issues when it is mentioned at all. The last major piece of gun control legislation was the Assault Weapons Ban that was passed with an expiration date and not renewed. We've also had multiple states become more permissive with gun ownership in the meantime. I'm not making it a big issue. I'm happy with the status quo. You're making arguments that the status quo is barbaric lunacy.
Vash108 wrote: [
I own guns myself and wholeheartedly think there should be a test and courses you must have to gain a license to own a gun, just like you would car.
There is no requirement of any kind of testing or licensing to own a car, not even an age minimum. So this argument is moot.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Fraz, you're kind of pointing out why the rest of the world tends to think Americans are a bit.... odd... with their gun fascination. Instead of a real discussion about gun ownership vs car ownership you just point to a 230 year old document. I'm not going to say that 230 year old document is right or wrong, but just pointing to isn't really addressing the discussion of how things might be, it's simply stating the reason why it's already that way.... because of the 230 year old document said so.
If, instead, you used arguments that pointed out why you think guns should have less restriction than cars and how that applies today vs 230 years ago, then the rest of the world would start to view Muricans as less.... odd.
As it currently stands there is MUCH more regulation on firearms than there are automobiles.
An armed populace acts as a check against tyranny.
I usually agree with you on a lot of things, whembly, but you're wrong on this, and worst of all, you're forgetting your own nation's history.
Martin Luther King, and others like him such as Rosa Parks, brought down Jim Crow laws, a tyranny against African-Americans, but King didn't use firearms to achieve this goal.
Gandhi gained India's independence from Britain, and the man probably never touched a firearm in his life.
Freedom can and has been won with the gun, but it can be won and has been won without the gun.
.
Gandhi wasn't all that important to India's Independence. At best he was an over-hyped face man made important by the media. Let's not continue this fallacy that he was some kind of saint. He was an extreme racist, had some kind of weirdo fetish relationship with his niece, and had an obsession with enemas. He also wasn't totally opposed to violence if it got the job done.
I have read this whole thread. Up front I believe that the former cop is whole heartedly in the wrong, however he does have a lame defense from SYG.
SYG is important and necessary and is in no way a license to do whatever you want. So is castle law. No one enters my home illegally and takes advantage of my years of hard work. Wrong house dude.
On a philosophical note, this thread has got me thinking. Put aside the occasional well gene'd person with great physic up to the 90s, however your average senior citizen is slower, has less muscle mass, is not as "spry" as they once were, and could in very easily conceivable circumstances feel a threat far and above what the average 20-30 year old might feel is a threat. I am 38, I have beat my body to hell for 20 years, running, trying with all my will to keep up with the young new Soldiers to show them I am not as weak and still able to kick ass. I go home after and I hurt, I ache, and it takes days to recover. Now fast forward 20 years. I make no illusions I could effectively stave off someone younger, faster, stronger than me in a "fair fight". I carry so I don't have to fight a fair fight, because there shouldn't be a fight in the first place.
Ignore the people break bones walking gak that has been tossed around, when I was 18 I took punches and gave punches back, now I would probably take a punch, and hit the damn ground. So yea, in my opinion being elderly is a defense to escalate a little faster, but not shoot someone in the face in a theater over texting faster.
to all the non firearm countries out there. Lets make one thing clear, the desire, the ability to pull the trigger on another human being is rarely found in 99% of mentally competent people. I promise you its hard when you do it, and its harder to deal with after the fact. Many people who say they would have no issues pulling the trigger have never been actually put in that situation, they have and they haven't learned how to turn that switch off, or they have issues. Just my perspective. Gun ownership does not create a desire to use said gun to end human life at all. period.
Prestor Jon wrote: You post here more frequently than I do so I'll take you word for how hostile the threads get. That's a shame because the debate really boils down to people who are content with the status quo and people who want to change it. In my experience the content people tend to remain steadfast and the people advocating more restrictions tend to become more emotional and heated as their frustration increases.
I think typically the opposite is true - people get more emotional when faced with the chance of losing something. For instance, look at Obamacare - 8 years ago Republicans were filling townhalls getting angry about the idea of their healthcare changing. Now that ACA is part of the status quo and Republicans are talking about changing it we see Democrats filling townhalls getting angry about stuff.
When it comes to guns though, I think there's enough emotion on both sides that I find it hard to pick out which side is being more emotive.
I agree with your calculus on the pros and cons of gun ownership and I think the benefits outweigh the costs.
Cool. I'm not as certain but (a) I'm not American, and (b) even if it does cause more harm than good that doesn't mean banning it - you have to be convinced that new laws would actually minimise the harm in some way. I haven't seen any plausible legal proposals that I could say with any conviction would actually reduce the death rate.
I think you overstate the desire for change in the US. It's true that every time there's a mass shooting there is national news coverage of it and the debate over gun control becomes a national story as well but that only lasts for a few weeks. There has yet to be any long lasting impetus to make any real change to the status quo. After the Newtown shooting the state of Connecticut passed a law requiring "assault rifles" to be registered but few people are complying with it and the authorities in CT aren't enforcing it. In NY you had the SAFE Act get passed but some of it has been overturned in court already and it primarily dealt with magazine capacity which really doesn't affect gun ownership or proliferation. While differences remain between states, California and Massachusetts have more restrictive gun laws than Montana and Florida, on a national level we're trending to a more permissive than restrictive society. More states are shall issue states for concealed carry permits than ever before, there are less restrictions on where you can carry concealed weapons, there are more concealed carried permits being issued and more guns being purchased. Permissive states are becoming more permissive and restrictive states are facing more court challenges. Obtaining a concealed carry permit is a very simple process in 35 states and we're not seeing any concerted effort to push back against that. Gun control can be a hot topic in the news cycle but it hasn't been a big issue at the ballot box in my lifetime.
It never shows up as being a priority in polling.
Most wedge issues don't. The economy, health and foreign policy will always rule the day, but we still get laws passed on other stuff all the same.
And I think you took my point on unhappiness about guns as the unhappiness being purely on the anti-gun side. I think there's a reasonable amount of unhappiness on both sides. Anti-gun people have reasonable complaints to be made about little being done despite the deaths, and pro-gun people have reasonable complaints to make about existing gun laws that add difficulty and expenses to gun ownership while doing nothing to prevent deaths. I see it as a situation in a state of flux.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prestor Jon wrote: Two people in a room together are going to behave how they want to behave regardless of the presence of firearms. If the two of us were ever in a room together there's a good chance I'll be armed but that doesn't instill any desire in my to do you harm. Likewise if for some reason we were in the same room and for some reason I desired to try to harm you I could successfully attempt to do so even if I wasn't armed. Carrying a gun didn't change the ex cop's temperament or his willingness to commit violence against another person, it just increased the lethality of the violence. That's the point.
Yeah, that sums it up nicely. A gun doesn't change the likelihood of violence, it changes the potential severity of violence once a situation devolves in to violence.
sebster wrote: Yeah, that sums it up nicely. A gun doesn't change the likelihood of violence, it changes the potential severity of violence once a situation devolves in to violence.
Would definitely agree. I think people who carry need to be very careful about not inserting themselves, or exposing themselves needlessly, to situations they would avoid if they were not armed.
Or, in some instances, it provides that violence isn't a one-way street.
I'm reminded of this old Biblical tale. A king was duped into scapegoating Jews and making it legal to assault and kill them. Quickly realizing the error he just made (and due to legal technicality unable to repeal his decree) said, "Sure you can attack a Jew, but I'm giving them the right to defend themselves with deadly force."
Now, don't get me wrong, this old guy killed without sufficient reason. He is a problem. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater though.
Maybe your neighbors own guns, maybe they don't. Are you afraid of your neighbors? Are they bad people?
It's not about being afraid of them. Do you trust all of your neighbors to be 100% vigilant and safe with their guns at all times? For them to be rational and never be startled into using them? For them not to escalate anything too quickly? Do them having guns make you feel safer?
Were you planning on murdering children with the shotgun you owned? If not then no children were saved from taking away your right to own that shotgun so what was gained? You hadn't done anything wrong, you weren't a threat to anyone and you lost a right because somebody else with no connection to you committed a heinous crime. I don't see any benefit to that kind of collective punishment that lumps the innocent in with the guilty based on faulty logic. If you do something wrong you can be punished if you don't do anything wrong the govt doesn't have the right to punish you.
That's quite the strawman. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the vast majority of your school shootings (of which we've had exactly one, about 20 years ago), the shooter isn't actually the registered owner of the gun, no?
Beyond school shootings, the vast majority of guns deaths are accidental, no?
We hear a lot about toddlers killing parents with guns, normally found in handbags or loose in houses (fun fact; your toddlers kill more people by accidental discharge than our murders do deliberately).
So it's not a case of what my intentions are with the gun, but the intentions of anyone who may ever need to have access to it. Since my reasons for owning the shotgun and air rifle were essentially target shooting / coolness, I lost almost nothing by giving them up (I'd rather have sold them to buy some plastic crack, but that's not the point), and I gained the security of knowing that at no point in the future can my guns be responsible for any deaths, whether deliberate or otherwise.
I don't feel like I've lost any rights to own a killing machine I rarely use. If I do want to go do some shooting, I can go to a range and hire one.
The fact that guns are illegal here makes it a lot easier to police - possessing a gun is a custodial offense, so you don't need to deal with all the nuances of whether that guy with the gun is allowed one or not., because with very few exceptions he's not. It also means there's not the same level of escalation you have. Since anyone can have a gun over there, you kind of need to assume they've got one, which is why a man was shot dead over some stray popcorn. Over here, almost no-one has a gun, so that argument would have likely only resulted in a few traded blows before they were pulled apart.
I know which situation I'd rather be in. But then that's the issue with the worlds understanding of the US gun situation - we've got irreconcilable differences of opinion, because they've been ingrained in our culture for so long.
And it's not just the US constitution that protects our right to own firearms, most state constitutions also protect that right and many municipal and county authorities are also required to protect that right. It's quite the difficult task to get all of those laws repealed, counteract generations of accepted gun ownership and hundreds of years of social norms all in the name of creating a false sense of security.
Your constitution also protected your right to own slaves, but you don't see many people defending that any more. Just because it's enshrined in law doesn't make it a good idea or valid anymore.
How many people need to die because of misuse of guns before the pro-gun crowd think that something needs to be done? You've even relaxed the rules on people with registered mental illness from buying guns.
Dreadwinter wrote: If two people are in a room, unarmed, one is less likely to rib the other because they would be on equal footing. Nobody gets in a fist fight to rob a person, the chance of being too injured to flee or losing the fight is too great. Now if one of them has a firearm and they can draw it on the other before they can draw their own, then the robbery would occur.
You getting this?
But they aren't on an equal footing. One is a young guy, one is a very old guy. The young guy will literally kill the old guy.
Not necesarily. The young guy was texting a babysitter, and the old guy was an ex-cop. Odds are the young guy wouldn't have killed the old guy, most likely the young guy would have fended off a couple of blows and then got on with his life.
In this situtation, the old guy literally killed the young guy, by escalating a conflict beyond rationality, and we're somehow arguing that allowing that sort of thing to happen is OK.
The two were in a verbal exchange. Supposedly the Deceased then threw popcorn at him (technically battery) and then a cell phone (battery) then stood up.
At this point legally the old guy has not "started the fight." in contrast, he is the victim at this point, although what could be termed a "dickbag."
Do you think that's worth being shot dead over?
Also, why do you assume that the young guy would want to beat the old guy to death? Isn't it more likely that he'd walk away from it knowing that the old guy is of no threat?
sebster wrote: Yeah, that sums it up nicely. A gun doesn't change the likelihood of violence, it changes the potential severity of violence once a situation devolves in to violence.
Would definitely agree. I think people who carry need to be very careful about not inserting themselves, or exposing themselves needlessly, to situations they would avoid if they were not armed.
A very good point.
In many respects, I think it's too late for the USA when it comes to gun control, even if everybody agreed to it. Your population is what? 300 million people or something, and I think there's 400 million guns in the country.
Even if the 2nd was scrapped tomorrow, it would still take years to dispose of those guns.
With that many guns around, a tipping point has been reached, and law abiding citizens need guns, because the odds are everybody else will have them.
My sympathies with gun owners are on record all over dakka, but I could never get used to the idea of taking a gun to a cinema or shop or whatever, or being near people who are armed...
No offence to gun owners here, but it feels weird.
It's a cultural thing, I respect that, but something I wouldn't want in Britain. We had all that long ago with our civil wars, armed populace etc etc, but in our history, it was mostly swords, castles, shields, and semi-automatic cross-bows
The frailty of old people has been discussed much more in this thread.
I agree, once you hit a certain age, you may not be made of glass, but few could argue you are gonna take the same amount of punishment as you did when you were decades younger. that video shows what would clearly not have been a push that caused a fall to a younger person, but was clearly a painful fall for an elderly person. Once again do not agree with the shooting being discussed here, however there come a point where you could recognize an elderly person might escalate a bit faster based on frailty. If I had a cane, I would have been wacking some youngster before I attempted to get in a fist fight for instance.
Can't let any of them help the lady out, it could be dangerous, imagine if he wasn't quick on the pepper spray, someone could have died or something.
I guess that's why I could never be a cop, don't have the right stuff to pepper spray an overweight middle aged lady after knocking over an 70lb geriatric lady. Automatically Appended Next Post:
The frailty of old people has been discussed much more in this thread.
Well the old lady got up by herself and wasn't injured, so I guess she's pretty tough. She was knocked over easily, but anyone can be caught off balance, if she was younger she might have had the balance and coordination to stumble back instead of being toppled, though I'm sure there's a few uncoordinated young folks who'd just topple over as well.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Herzlos wrote: The fact that guns are illegal here makes it a lot easier to police - possessing a gun is a custodial offense, so you don't need to deal with all the nuances of whether that guy with the gun is allowed one or not., because with very few exceptions he's not. It also means there's not the same level of escalation you have. Since anyone can have a gun over there, you kind of need to assume they've got one, which is why a man was shot dead over some stray popcorn. Over here, almost no-one has a gun, so that argument would have likely only resulted in a few traded blows before they were pulled apart.
I know which situation I'd rather be in. But then that's the issue with the worlds understanding of the US gun situation - we've got irreconcilable differences of opinion, because they've been ingrained in our culture for so long.
I think in general cultures in other countries are more likely to say "hmm, yeah, I'd like my guns, but I can see they seem to cause more deaths so I'm willing to give them up". I wouldn't necessarily say one approach is better than the other, but one seems to result in less dead people than the other.
Whether it's accidental shootings, massacres from mentally unstable people, increased chance of a suicide attempt succeeding, cops being more likely to accidentally shoot a suspect or an argument over texting in a theatre ending with someone being shot and killed.... guns make the general population as a whole seems more likely to be killed. I understand some people argue that having guns is a crime deterrent, I'm not overly convinced, where I lived in the US there seemed to be heaps of crime in spite of every 2nd person I spoke to saying they at the very least had a gun in the house. I moved after someone tried to kick down my door and successfully kicked down my neighbour's door.
Just a quick reminder. There are really very few "non firearm" countries out there. I'm from one of those countries yet I have 4 of them. Two handguns, one shotgun and a rifle, all legally owned and paid for (one of them made in America by the way).
It's true that it's harder for us to get hold of one, that you're required to act in a much more responsible manner with them but ask most gun owners and they'll agree it's for the best.
Different countries, different situations though. There so many legal and illegal weapons in the US it would take massively intrusive measures to make a dent.
redleger wrote: to all the non firearm countries out there. Lets make one thing clear, the desire, the ability to pull the trigger on another human being is rarely found in 99% of mentally competent people.
1 in 100 is pretty bad odds
But the non-firearm countries don't think all Americans are crazy enough to go shooting up the place.... at worst the non-firearm countries think Americans are selfish and/or callous for wanting to keep their guns when getting rid of them would result in less deaths. Not saying I think that way, but I reckon it's probably the most commonly held thought rather than "Americans want to blow everyone away".
Just a quick reminder. There are really very few "non firearm" countries out there. I'm from one of those countries yet I have 4 of them. Two handguns, one shotgun and a rifle, all legally owned and paid for (one of them made in America by the way).
It's true that it's harder for us to get hold of one, that you're required to act in a much more responsible manner with them but ask most gun owners and they'll agree it's for the best.
Different countries, different situations though. There so many legal and illegal weapons in the US it would take massively intrusive measures to make a dent.
Yes, I think that is one of the main feelings is that even if the second amendment were repealed today, all the law abiding citizens(ok maybe most) would surrender their arms, apply for whatever licenses if any, or just go without. The problem is then that you have a large predatory populace left with fire arms, that it would be hard to argue would not take full advantage of this situation. Once you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. Its not often talked about, its always "this is my right", and while that is %100 true, there is another over arching concern which makes the idea very problematic.
Economic- hutning business is big in rural areas of America. Hunting it self is how many families save money on feeding the family. Hell I don't think I ate store bought meat till later on in life, and then it was rare.
I was about to begin naming all the issues, then i realized thats OT.
From what I saw on Dakka, it is.
From, say, the very existence of the NRA, it is.
Prestor Jon wrote: You're making arguments that the status quo is barbaric lunacy.
I'm not.
Using Dakka posts as a determiner of how important something is strikes me as an odd metric to use. Going by the number of posts on Dakka the greatest calamity facing the human race is GW price increases.
The NRA was created in 1871 and it's current membership of 5 million gun owners accounts for something like 10% of gun owners at best.
I got a different impression from your posts.
Just a quick reminder. There are really very few "non firearm" countries out there. I'm from one of those countries yet I have 4 of them. Two handguns, one shotgun and a rifle, all legally owned and paid for (one of them made in America by the way).
It's true that it's harder for us to get hold of one, that you're required to act in a much more responsible manner with them but ask most gun owners and they'll agree it's for the best.
Different countries, different situations though. There so many legal and illegal weapons in the US it would take massively intrusive measures to make a dent.
Good point. In the UK you can have a firearm (mostly shotguns/rifles as most others are completely banned with a few exceptions), provided you:
1. Pass a background check (no criminal record)
2. Have a valid reason for owning one (farmer, vet, pest control, member of gun club, etc)
3. Pass a site security check (police will come out to confirm you have somewhere secure to store it, like a locked safe within a cupboard)
4. Consent to random compliance visits to confirm (3). Police will turn up unannounced and ask to see the gun cabinet with massive penalties for non-compliance.
So those that actually need them have access, and everyone else doesn't. Part of the reason I gave mine up was because I didn't want the hassle of the random compliance visits, and not actually having a valid reason to keep it (beyond target shooting), it just didn't seem worth it.
Yes, I think that is one of the main feelings is that even if the second amendment were repealed today, all the law abiding citizens(ok maybe most) would surrender their arms, apply for whatever licenses if any, or just go without. The problem is then that you have a large predatory populace left with fire arms, that it would be hard to argue would not take full advantage of this situation. Once you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.
Initially, but since it'd become illegal to possess or trade guns without a license, and you visit the registered-but-unlicensed gun owners, then the number of guns in circulation will drop fairly quickly, as any unregistered or stolen guns are taken out of the system and not replaced. Give it maybe 5-10 years after repealing the 2nd ammendment with an amnesty, and you'd find that gun possession is in a vast minority.
Just a quick reminder. There are really very few "non firearm" countries out there. I'm from one of those countries yet I have 4 of them. Two handguns, one shotgun and a rifle, all legally owned and paid for (one of them made in America by the way).
It's true that it's harder for us to get hold of one, that you're required to act in a much more responsible manner with them but ask most gun owners and they'll agree it's for the best.
Different countries, different situations though. There so many legal and illegal weapons in the US it would take massively intrusive measures to make a dent.
Yes, I think that is one of the main feelings is that even if the second amendment were repealed today, all the law abiding citizens(ok maybe most) would surrender their arms, apply for whatever licenses if any, or just go without. The problem is then that you have a large predatory populace left with fire arms, that it would be hard to argue would not take full advantage of this situation. Once you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. Its not often talked about, its always "this is my right", and while that is %100 true, there is another over arching concern which makes the idea very problematic.
Economic- hutning business is big in rural areas of America. Hunting it self is how many families save money on feeding the family. Hell I don't think I ate store bought meat till later on in life, and then it was rare.
I was about to begin naming all the issues, then i realized thats OT.
Connecticut has an "assault rifle" registry and a large majority of owners of "assault rifles" have ignored the law requiring them to register the rifles and the Connecticut authorities aren't trying to enforce compliance.
redleger wrote: to all the non firearm countries out there. Lets make one thing clear, the desire, the ability to pull the trigger on another human being is rarely found in 99% of mentally competent people.
1 in 100 is pretty bad odds
But the non-firearm countries don't think all Americans are crazy enough to go shooting up the place.... at worst the non-firearm countries think Americans are selfish and/or callous for wanting to keep their guns when getting rid of them would result in less deaths. Not saying I think that way, but I reckon it's probably the most commonly held thought rather than "Americans want to blow everyone away".
Americans-selfish and callow? Excellent, maybe the rest of the world will quit asking us for our help.
Maybe your neighbors own guns, maybe they don't. Are you afraid of your neighbors? Are they bad people?
It's not about being afraid of them. Do you trust all of your neighbors to be 100% vigilant and safe with their guns at all times? For them to be rational and never be startled into using them? For them not to escalate anything too quickly? Do them having guns make you feel safer?
Were you planning on murdering children with the shotgun you owned? If not then no children were saved from taking away your right to own that shotgun so what was gained? You hadn't done anything wrong, you weren't a threat to anyone and you lost a right because somebody else with no connection to you committed a heinous crime. I don't see any benefit to that kind of collective punishment that lumps the innocent in with the guilty based on faulty logic. If you do something wrong you can be punished if you don't do anything wrong the govt doesn't have the right to punish you.
That's quite the strawman. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the vast majority of your school shootings (of which we've had exactly one, about 20 years ago), the shooter isn't actually the registered owner of the gun, no?
Beyond school shootings, the vast majority of guns deaths are accidental, no?
We hear a lot about toddlers killing parents with guns, normally found in handbags or loose in houses (fun fact; your toddlers kill more people by accidental discharge than our murders do deliberately).
So it's not a case of what my intentions are with the gun, but the intentions of anyone who may ever need to have access to it. Since my reasons for owning the shotgun and air rifle were essentially target shooting / coolness, I lost almost nothing by giving them up (I'd rather have sold them to buy some plastic crack, but that's not the point), and I gained the security of knowing that at no point in the future can my guns be responsible for any deaths, whether deliberate or otherwise.
I don't feel like I've lost any rights to own a killing machine I rarely use. If I do want to go do some shooting, I can go to a range and hire one.
The fact that guns are illegal here makes it a lot easier to police - possessing a gun is a custodial offense, so you don't need to deal with all the nuances of whether that guy with the gun is allowed one or not., because with very few exceptions he's not. It also means there's not the same level of escalation you have. Since anyone can have a gun over there, you kind of need to assume they've got one, which is why a man was shot dead over some stray popcorn. Over here, almost no-one has a gun, so that argument would have likely only resulted in a few traded blows before they were pulled apart.
I know which situation I'd rather be in. But then that's the issue with the worlds understanding of the US gun situation - we've got irreconcilable differences of opinion, because they've been ingrained in our culture for so long.
And it's not just the US constitution that protects our right to own firearms, most state constitutions also protect that right and many municipal and county authorities are also required to protect that right. It's quite the difficult task to get all of those laws repealed, counteract generations of accepted gun ownership and hundreds of years of social norms all in the name of creating a false sense of security.
Your constitution also protected your right to own slaves, but you don't see many people defending that any more. Just because it's enshrined in law doesn't make it a good idea or valid anymore.
How many people need to die because of misuse of guns before the pro-gun crowd think that something needs to be done? You've even relaxed the rules on people with registered mental illness from buying guns.
Dreadwinter wrote: If two people are in a room, unarmed, one is less likely to rib the other because they would be on equal footing. Nobody gets in a fist fight to rob a person, the chance of being too injured to flee or losing the fight is too great. Now if one of them has a firearm and they can draw it on the other before they can draw their own, then the robbery would occur.
You getting this?
But they aren't on an equal footing. One is a young guy, one is a very old guy. The young guy will literally kill the old guy.
Not necesarily. The young guy was texting a babysitter, and the old guy was an ex-cop. Odds are the young guy wouldn't have killed the old guy, most likely the young guy would have fended off a couple of blows and then got on with his life.
In this situtation, the old guy literally killed the young guy, by escalating a conflict beyond rationality, and we're somehow arguing that allowing that sort of thing to happen is OK.
The two were in a verbal exchange. Supposedly the Deceased then threw popcorn at him (technically battery) and then a cell phone (battery) then stood up.
At this point legally the old guy has not "started the fight." in contrast, he is the victim at this point, although what could be termed a "dickbag."
Do you think that's worth being shot dead over?
Also, why do you assume that the young guy would want to beat the old guy to death? Isn't it more likely that he'd walk away from it knowing that the old guy is of no threat?
I trust my neighbors to be responsible gun owners. Having other people in the neighborhood own guns doesn't make me feel more or less safe because I don't think it makes a significant difference to the safety and security of my household.
Our kids play with other kids in the neighborhood. Some of the other kids live in houses that have firearms and I'm not bothered by it. I trust the other kids' parents to be responsible and homes are full of dangers to kids, knives, scissors, medications, cleaning products, power tools some of the homes have yards with tree houses, zip lines, creek beds, trampolines and swimming pools all of which could harm, maim or kill my kids if used in an unsafe manner.
I wasn't constructing a strawman argument. You country decided that it was a logical to confiscate your shotgun as part of a response to a school shooting that you played no role in at all. How is that logical? Why were you such a threat to public safety that the govt had to remove that shotgun from your residence?
Were you planning on letting a toddler have access to your shotgun? Like I mentioned above, there are a lot of things that are dangerous if used in an unsafe manner in a house and I have confidence in my ability to prevent accidents with those and I have confidence in my ability to prevent negligent discharges with my firearms too. Will some gun owners have accidents and negligent discharges? Yes. Do I believe that the possibility of accidents and the reality of a few accidents warrants more restrictions on firearms than what we currently have? No, I don't.
Not anyone can own a gun here. I haven't seen any reporting that suggests that the ex cop in the movie theater thought that the man who threw popcorn at him had a gun. The man was shot because the ex cop was of a temperament that made him willing to commit a violence response to somebody using harsh words and throwing popcorn.
The US constitution doesn't allow us to own slaves anymore because we amended the constitution in 1865. If we don't like something in our constitution we can change it and we've done so several times. If we wanted to abolish the 2nd amendment we could but there isn't anything close to the amount of support needed to make it happen so we haven't.
Depending on what exactly was proposed it would likely take an exponentially more massive incidence rate of misuse or crimes to make me think that more draconian gun control laws should be considered or passed.
Yes, I think that is one of the main feelings is that even if the second amendment were repealed today, all the law abiding citizens(ok maybe most) would surrender their arms, apply for whatever licenses if any, or just go without. The problem is then that you have a large predatory populace left with fire arms, that it would be hard to argue would not take full advantage of this situation. Once you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.
Initially, but since it'd become illegal to possess or trade guns without a license, and you visit the registered-but-unlicensed gun owners, then the number of guns in circulation will drop fairly quickly, as any unregistered or stolen guns are taken out of the system and not replaced. Give it maybe 5-10 years after repealing the 2nd ammendment with an amnesty, and you'd find that gun possession is in a vast minority.
I think 5-10 years is not worth allowing certain organizations to take a larger foot hold, branch out to communities thta would not have been cost effective, and have them terrorize local populaces. Sure, the police might get a handle on it eventually, but do you seriously think that anything would get better, is the increase in loss of life worth the long term goals?
redleger wrote: I have read this whole thread. Up front I believe that the former cop is whole heartedly in the wrong, however he does have a lame defense from SYG.
SYG is important and necessary and is in no way a license to do whatever you want. So is castle law. No one enters my home illegally and takes advantage of my years of hard work. Wrong house dude.
SYG really doesn't have an impact on this incident. Stand Your Ground removes a legal obligation to retreat from an aggressor, that's it. The defender isn't responsible for avoiding the aggressor, the obligation is on the aggressor to not be unlawfully aggressive in the first place. It doesn't mean that you can't walk away from a confrontation or that you shouldn't walk away from a confrontation only that you don't incur any legal liabilities for choosing not to walk away.
Whether or not there is justification to use lethal force in self defense is a completely separate calculation and legal matter. You can choose not to flee from an aggressor and never face a reasonable imminent threat of bodily harm or death as a result. Simply choosing to stand your ground doesn't create any justification to use lethal force.
redleger wrote: I have read this whole thread. Up front I believe that the former cop is whole heartedly in the wrong, however he does have a lame defense from SYG.
SYG is important and necessary and is in no way a license to do whatever you want. So is castle law. No one enters my home illegally and takes advantage of my years of hard work. Wrong house dude.
SYG really doesn't have an impact on this incident. Stand Your Ground removes a legal obligation to retreat from an aggressor, that's it. The defender isn't responsible for avoiding the aggressor, the obligation is on the aggressor to not be unlawfully aggressive in the first place. It doesn't mean that you can't walk away from a confrontation or that you shouldn't walk away from a confrontation only that you don't incur any legal liabilities for choosing not to walk away.
Whether or not there is justification to use lethal force in self defense is a completely separate calculation and legal matter. You can choose not to flee from an aggressor and never face a reasonable imminent threat of bodily harm or death as a result. Simply choosing to stand your ground doesn't create any justification to use lethal force.
I concur, and as I stated in this case the shooter was in the wrong, no matter how you look at it. I was simply making a blanket statement. I do not believe lethal force should always be the immediate to go, however I know when I'm 79, a fist fight might just be skipped in favor of some dirty tactics then possibly shooting an aggressor, but I don't start fights, so it would never be an issue.
Very true in general. This may impact specifically as Florida has an interesting SYG with a prehearing etc. that is different.
But in general you are correct. Its only designed to stop NYC caselaw that had gone to ridiculous lengths in the victim's duty to somehow escape an attacker before defending herself.
Just a quick reminder. There are really very few "non firearm" countries out there. I'm from one of those countries yet I have 4 of them. Two handguns, one shotgun and a rifle, all legally owned and paid for (one of them made in America by the way).
It's true that it's harder for us to get hold of one, that you're required to act in a much more responsible manner with them but ask most gun owners and they'll agree it's for the best.
Different countries, different situations though. There so many legal and illegal weapons in the US it would take massively intrusive measures to make a dent.
Yes, I think that is one of the main feelings is that even if the second amendment were repealed today, all the law abiding citizens(ok maybe most) would surrender their arms, apply for whatever licenses if any, or just go without. The problem is then that you have a large predatory populace left with fire arms, that it would be hard to argue would not take full advantage of this situation. Once you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. Its not often talked about, its always "this is my right", and while that is %100 true, there is another over arching concern which makes the idea very problematic.
Economic- hutning business is big in rural areas of America. Hunting it self is how many families save money on feeding the family. Hell I don't think I ate store bought meat till later on in life, and then it was rare.
I was about to begin naming all the issues, then i realized thats OT.
Connecticut has an "assault rifle" registry and a large majority of owners of "assault rifles" have ignored the law requiring them to register the rifles and the Connecticut authorities aren't trying to enforce compliance.
I would be interested as to why the ATF is not involved with this? This is part of a larger problem where we have laws in place that are not enforced, We definitely need this fixed before making an new ones.
Because the ATF doesn't want half their force exterminated WACO style (another time they tried that) when they try to illegally go house to house Gestapo style and run into the 1 in 20 gunowners who take the 2nd Amendment as it was first intended?
Of course before that, they all would have had accidents where their firearms fell into the lake or were robbed of only their firearms...
well Ruby Ridge and Waco were cluster feths but that doesn't negate the responsibility of the ATF to to their job in a lawful manner. Part of having a FFL is the understanding that at any time your right to not be searched is waived, so you can be inspected by surprise to ensure compliance. Why then in this stated scenario are our tax dollars not being use to ENFORCE the law?
Just a quick reminder. There are really very few "non firearm" countries out there. I'm from one of those countries yet I have 4 of them. Two handguns, one shotgun and a rifle, all legally owned and paid for (one of them made in America by the way).
It's true that it's harder for us to get hold of one, that you're required to act in a much more responsible manner with them but ask most gun owners and they'll agree it's for the best.
Different countries, different situations though. There so many legal and illegal weapons in the US it would take massively intrusive measures to make a dent.
Yes, I think that is one of the main feelings is that even if the second amendment were repealed today, all the law abiding citizens(ok maybe most) would surrender their arms, apply for whatever licenses if any, or just go without. The problem is then that you have a large predatory populace left with fire arms, that it would be hard to argue would not take full advantage of this situation. Once you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. Its not often talked about, its always "this is my right", and while that is %100 true, there is another over arching concern which makes the idea very problematic.
Economic- hutning business is big in rural areas of America. Hunting it self is how many families save money on feeding the family. Hell I don't think I ate store bought meat till later on in life, and then it was rare.
I was about to begin naming all the issues, then i realized thats OT.
Connecticut has an "assault rifle" registry and a large majority of owners of "assault rifles" have ignored the law requiring them to register the rifles and the Connecticut authorities aren't trying to enforce compliance.
I would be interested as to why the ATF is not involved with this? This is part of a larger problem where we have laws in place that are not enforced, We definitely need this fixed before making an new ones.
The ATF has zero involvement in this because it's a state law not a federal one so the ATF has no jurisdiction. A state report from 2011 used NICS information to estimate that there were 1.2 million rifles privately owned in Connecticut. To date there's been about 50k "assault rifles" registered which is nowhere near the actual number of "assault rifles" in Connecticut. Citizens don't want to register them and the govt and LEOs don't want to go looking for them but the law is still on the books.
Just a quick reminder. There are really very few "non firearm" countries out there. I'm from one of those countries yet I have 4 of them. Two handguns, one shotgun and a rifle, all legally owned and paid for (one of them made in America by the way).
It's true that it's harder for us to get hold of one, that you're required to act in a much more responsible manner with them but ask most gun owners and they'll agree it's for the best.
Different countries, different situations though. There so many legal and illegal weapons in the US it would take massively intrusive measures to make a dent.
Yes, I think that is one of the main feelings is that even if the second amendment were repealed today, all the law abiding citizens(ok maybe most) would surrender their arms, apply for whatever licenses if any, or just go without. The problem is then that you have a large predatory populace left with fire arms, that it would be hard to argue would not take full advantage of this situation. Once you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. Its not often talked about, its always "this is my right", and while that is %100 true, there is another over arching concern which makes the idea very problematic.
Economic- hutning business is big in rural areas of America. Hunting it self is how many families save money on feeding the family. Hell I don't think I ate store bought meat till later on in life, and then it was rare.
I was about to begin naming all the issues, then i realized thats OT.
Connecticut has an "assault rifle" registry and a large majority of owners of "assault rifles" have ignored the law requiring them to register the rifles and the Connecticut authorities aren't trying to enforce compliance.
I would be interested as to why the ATF is not involved with this? This is part of a larger problem where we have laws in place that are not enforced, We definitely need this fixed before making an new ones.
The ATF has zero involvement in this because it's a state law not a federal one so the ATF has no jurisdiction. A state report from 2011 used NICS information to estimate that there were 1.2 million rifles privately owned in Connecticut. To date there's been about 50k "assault rifles" registered which is nowhere near the actual number of "assault rifles" in Connecticut. Citizens don't want to register them and the govt and LEOs don't want to go looking for them but the law is still on the books.
redleger wrote: well Ruby Ridge and Waco were cluster feths but that doesn't negate the responsibility of the ATF to to their job in a lawful manner. Part of having a FFL is the understanding that at any time your right to not be searched is waived, so you can be inspected by surprise to ensure compliance. Why then in this stated scenario are our tax dollars not being use to ENFORCE the law?
Because Mattel gun owners don't have FFL's.
As for why the ATF doesn't do more, well my view of the ATF is less positive then other people...
There has been some discussion over how "crazy" the US is for its gun culture. I'll admit, guns can kill people, but I still love them. Why? because I can live with the risk, which is actually pretty low.
Guns are statistically less likely to kill you than the average swimming pool, pogo stick, trampoline, skateboard, bicycle, or ladder.
cuda1179 wrote: There has been some discussion over how "crazy" the US is for its gun culture. I'll admit, guns can kill people, but I still love them. Why? because I can live with the risk, which is actually pretty low.
Guns are statistically less likely to kill you than the average swimming pool, pogo stick, trampoline, skateboard, bicycle, or ladder.
Pogo sticks, the only toy designed specifically to cause accidents...
cuda1179 wrote: There has been some discussion over how "crazy" the US is for its gun culture. I'll admit, guns can kill people, but I still love them. Why? because I can live with the risk, which is actually pretty low.
Guns are statistically less likely to kill you than the average swimming pool, pogo stick, trampoline, skateboard, bicycle, or ladder.
Pogo sticks, the only toy designed specifically to cause accidents...
Lawn darts. Because who doesn't want seven year olds flinging actual missiles all willy nilly.
cuda1179 wrote: There has been some discussion over how "crazy" the US is for its gun culture. I'll admit, guns can kill people, but I still love them. Why? because I can live with the risk, which is actually pretty low.
Guns are statistically less likely to kill you than the average swimming pool, pogo stick, trampoline, skateboard, bicycle, or ladder.
Frazzled wrote: Americans-selfish and callow? Excellent, maybe the rest of the world will quit asking us for our help.
I can name a few countries that never called for US aid and would be all the better if the US hasn't sent said “help”.
“Let me help you by overthrowing your elected government to replace it with a violent dictatorship where the dictator serves our interest to the detriment of your people. I'm such a benevolent benefactor, why don't others thank me more for all I do for them!”
Is the US the official “Nice Guy™” country yet ?
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: In many respects, I think it's too late for the USA when it comes to gun control, even if everybody agreed to it. Your population is what? 300 million people or something, and I think there's 400 million guns in the country.
More guns than citizen according to:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country But that hardly matters. Just put a lot of limitations on ammunition too.
Also once guns are banned and not used by law-abiding citizens it makes carrying a gun, as a criminal, much more dangerous because it directly identify you as a criminal. You can't blend in with law-abiding citizens anymore. The police can therefore arrest you even before you commit the crimes you planned to do.
Prestor Jon wrote: You country decided that it was a logical to confiscate your shotgun as part of a response to a school shooting that you played no role in at all. How is that logical?
Seems pretty logical to me. Because people can't know in advance who is going to be the next would-be school shooter, they agree to remove guns from everyone, and therefore they do remove the gun from the next would-be school shooter. Every one of them pays a small price (losing their guns) for a high reward (taking the gun of the would-be school shooter away). Now the thing is that for you personally the price of taking your guns away is huge, even too big to make the reward of taking the gun away from the would-be school shooter away.
That's your choice, and the choice of many Americans. For the huge majority of people in the rest of the world, the reward outweigh the price by a huge margin. Different values, I guess.
Seriously, that reward is HUGE! How could it not be logical to pay this small price for this high reward?
cuda1179 wrote: There has been some discussion over how "crazy" the US is for its gun culture. I'll admit, guns can kill people, but I still love them. Why? because I can live with the risk, which is actually pretty low.
Guns are statistically less likely to kill you than the average swimming pool, pogo stick, trampoline, skateboard, bicycle, or ladder.
Do you have a citation to that?
Is that per-capita or per use?
Per the CDC report there were 586 accidental deaths by firearm in 2014. In comparison, the same year saw, 3,406 accidental drowning deaths, 31,959 deaths from accidental falls, 623 pedal cyclists were killed in motor vehicle accidents and 279 pedal cyclists were killed by other means and 1,342 people were unintentionally killed using other land transport means.
Prestor Jon wrote: You country decided that it was a logical to confiscate your shotgun as part of a response to a school shooting that you played no role in at all. How is that logical?
Seems pretty logical to me. Because people can't know in advance who is going to be the next would-be school shooter, they agree to remove guns from everyone, and therefore they do remove the gun from the next would-be school shooter. Every one of them pays a small price (losing their guns) for a high reward (taking the gun of the would-be school shooter away). Now the thing is that for you personally the price of taking your guns away is huge, even too big to make the reward of taking the gun away from the would-be school shooter away.
That's your choice, and the choice of many Americans. For the huge majority of people in the rest of the world, the reward outweigh the price by a huge margin. Different values, I guess.
Seriously, that reward is HUGE! How could it not be logical to pay this small price for this high reward?
I can't think of any benefit that would make me believe that punishing people for crimes they haven't committed yet and may never commit is worthwhile.
Guns deaths in the US are approx 33,000 per year.
Swimming pool deaths are approx 3500 per year.
One of those numbers is bigger than the other.
However, there are approx 310,000,000 guns in the US.
There are approx 13,520,000 pools in the US.
One of those numbers is smaller than the other.
This means there is 0.0001 deaths per gun, while there is 0.0002 deaths per pool, making guns statistically safer than pools!
Frazzled wrote: Americans-selfish and callow? Excellent, maybe the rest of the world will quit asking us for our help.
I can name a few countries that never called for US aid and would be all the better if the US hasn't sent said “help”.
“Let me help you by overthrowing your elected government to replace it with a violent dictatorship where the dictator serves our interest to the detriment of your people. I'm such a benevolent benefactor, why don't others thank me more for all I do for them!”
Is the US the official “Nice Guy™” country yet ?
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: In many respects, I think it's too late for the USA when it comes to gun control, even if everybody agreed to it. Your population is what? 300 million people or something, and I think there's 400 million guns in the country.
More guns than citizen according to:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country But that hardly matters. Just put a lot of limitations on ammunition too.
Also once guns are banned and not used by law-abiding citizens it makes carrying a gun, as a criminal, much more dangerous because it directly identify you as a criminal. You can't blend in with law-abiding citizens anymore. The police can therefore arrest you even before you commit the crimes you planned to do.
yes, because hundreds of millions of firearms and tens of billions of rounds of ammunition, with no registration or way to track them, are going to be easy to get rid of, and we're assuming all police agencies will comply, which many will not. All you end up doing is turning untold millions of people who never did anything into criminals overnight. Thats the exact same silly logic that led to the insane drug war too.
Prestor Jon wrote: You country decided that it was a logical to confiscate your shotgun as part of a response to a school shooting that you played no role in at all. How is that logical?
Seems pretty logical to me. Because people can't know in advance who is going to be the next would-be school shooter, they agree to remove guns from everyone, and therefore they do remove the gun from the next would-be school shooter.
better remove all cars too then, never know who th next drunk driver might be. All alcohol too for that matter.
Every one of them pays a small price (losing their guns) for a high reward (taking the gun of the would-be school shooter away).
taking away property rights and the means to self defense from millions of people to prevent *hypothetical* crimes that constitute a statistically irrelevant number of deaths.
Now the thing is that for you personally the price of taking your guns away is huge, even too big to make the reward of taking the gun away from the would-be school shooter away.
That's your choice, and the choice of many Americans. For the huge majority of people in the rest of the world, the reward outweigh the price by a huge margin. Different values, I guess.
Seriously, that reward is HUGE! How could it not be logical to pay this small price for this high reward?
Mass shootings and other such events have happened in places with much stricter gun laws, and when people cant get guns they use explosives or trucks or other such things. The types of events you are referencing kill almost nobody, they make great big headlines, but can and are done with different tools in different places.
It's the more common crimes around gangs and handguns that account for the overwhelming amount of gun violence, people who often already obtain guns illegally, which wouldnt be solved by any of this.
feeder wrote: Guns deaths in the US are approx 33,000 per year.
Swimming pool deaths are approx 3500 per year.
One of those numbers is bigger than the other.
However, there are approx 310,000,000 guns in the US.
There are approx 13,520,000 pools in the US.
One of those numbers is smaller than the other.
This means there is 0.0001 deaths per gun, while there is 0.0002 deaths per pool, making guns statistically safer than pools!
feeder wrote: Guns deaths in the US are approx 33,000 per year.
Swimming pool deaths are approx 3500 per year.
One of those numbers is bigger than the other.
However, there are approx 310,000,000 guns in the US.
There are approx 13,520,000 pools in the US.
One of those numbers is smaller than the other.
This means there is 0.0001 deaths per gun, while there is 0.0002 deaths per pool, making guns statistically safer than pools!
yes, because hundreds of millions of firearms and tens of billions of rounds of ammunition, with no registration or way to track them, are going to be easy to get rid of, and we're assuming all police agencies will comply, which many will not. All you end up doing is turning untold millions of people who never did anything into criminals overnight. Thats the exact same silly logic that led to the insane drug war too.
feeder wrote: Guns deaths in the US are approx 33,000 per year.
Swimming pool deaths are approx 3500 per year.
One of those numbers is bigger than the other.
However, there are approx 310,000,000 guns in the US.
There are approx 13,520,000 pools in the US.
One of those numbers is smaller than the other.
This means there is 0.0001 deaths per gun, while there is 0.0002 deaths per pool, making guns statistically safer than pools!
The fact a large number of gun deaths in the US probably shouldn't be handwaved away as saying well, a lot are suicide. Yes, that is true, but I think most reasonable people can probably agree that suicide is very much an impulsive act, and access to a firearm gives a much higher chance of successfully executing it. Yes, if you really want to, there is nothing stopping you from running in front of a bus or jumping off a bridge, but by and large, the amount of successful suicides in this country are at least in part because of easy access to firearms.
This isn't an argument that we need to ban firearms, just one of those things we have to accept that we're OK with as the cost for our way of life.
Prestor Jon wrote: Most drownings are accidental and there are many times more accidental drownings deaths than accidental shooting deaths.
And tell me, do most localities not have requirements to try and mitigate this? i.e. require a fence around a pool?`
We don't really do this with firearms. States that attempt to require firearms be secured in a safe are decried as both unconstitutional and unworkable, and those arguments aren't without a grain of merit - but it's an attempt to mitigate, just like with pools. When a kid finds a gun and blows away a sibling or themselves, we often describe it as "an accident" and barring some modifier like the owner was a felon, the firearm owner isn't charged with a crime because it "was a tragedy, and they've suffered enough". Again, not making an argument for banning anything but they're both good examples of the weird blinders we wear as Americans.
Ouze wrote: The fact a large number of gun deaths in the US probably shouldn't be handwaved away as saying well, a lot are suicide. Yes, that is true, but I think most reasonable people can probably agree that suicide is very much an impulsive act, and access to a firearm gives a much higher chance of successfully executing it. Yes, if you really want to, there is nothing stopping you from running in front of a bus or jumping off a bridge, but by and large, the amount of successful suicides in this country are at least in part because of easy access to firearms.
This isn't an argument that we need to ban firearms, just one of those things we have to accept that we're OK with as the cost for our way of life.
I'm not advocating that we should handwave the suicide number.
In fact, I'm advocating that we should separate suicide by guns from the other gun death statistics. Why?
Suicide is cause by one person using an easy means to carry out the deed. This number should be pointed out so that we can properly assess the seriousness of mental health needs. Simply banning guns will do nothing to help someone planning their suicide mission.
So, adding in the suicide numbers with other violent gun deaths simply inflates that number and gives a flawed result.
Prestor Jon wrote: I can't think of any benefit that would make me believe that punishing people for crimes they haven't committed yet and may never commit is worthwhile.
Keep going with that “punishment” narrative, it won't make it any truer. Someone deciding to give up on something is completely different from being punished. Now you personally you may not want to make that decision and you may be angry that other people's choice is forced upon you. But first, Herzlos did agree with this decision voluntarily and support it, so of course he doesn't feel punished and he is right not to, and second, that's how democracy work, sometime others people decisions are forced upon you. Coincidentally, it's also how fascism work and how communism work and how constitutional monarchy work, and basically how every political system work.
You ain't any more punished because gun control than you are punished because drug laws, or taxes, or traffic rules, or parking rules, or…
Prestor Jon wrote: I can't think of any benefit that would make me believe that punishing people for crimes they haven't committed yet and may never commit is worthwhile.
Keep going with that “punishment” narrative, it won't make it any truer. Someone deciding to give up on something is completely different from being punished.
The person giving up something isnt the one making the decision in this case, the decision is forced upon them. Thats where the "punishment" aspect comes in.
Now you personally you may not want to make that decision and you may be angry that other people's choice is forced upon you. But first, Herzlos did agree with this decision voluntarily and support it, so of course he doesn't feel punished and he is right not to, and second, that's how democracy work, sometime others people decisions are forced upon you.
This almost never includes forfeiture of property however, especially without significant compensation.
Coincidentally, it's also how fascism work and how communism work and how constitutional monarchy work, and basically how every political system work.
You ain't any more punished because gun control than you are punished because drug laws, or taxes, or traffic rules, or parking rules, or…
hrm, no these things absolutely can be punishing and be intended as punishments, and are reacted to as such, like drug laws and taxes in many instances.
There are also very different categories here. You're mixing criminal law and civil law. Traffic laws are an entirely different area of law from drug law.
Prestor Jon wrote: I can't think of any benefit that would make me believe that punishing people for crimes they haven't committed yet and may never commit is worthwhile.
Keep going with that “punishment” narrative, it won't make it any truer. Someone deciding to give up on something is completely different from being punished. Now you personally you may not want to make that decision and you may be angry that other people's choice is forced upon you. But first, Herzlos did agree with this decision voluntarily and support it, so of course he doesn't feel punished and he is right not to, and second, that's how democracy work, sometime others people decisions are forced upon you. Coincidentally, it's also how fascism work and how communism work and how constitutional monarchy work, and basically how every political system work.
You ain't any more punished because gun control than you are punished because drug laws, or taxes, or traffic rules, or parking rules, or…
Removing rights and liberties is punishment. We deprive people of liberty when we put them in prison and that's forced upon them by society and that is most certainly punishment. If you take something away from somebody and leave them lesser than they were before they have been punished.
Why do you assume that I don't view drug laws, taxes the same way I view gun control laws?
The likelihood of the laws changing in my state and country to the extent that I am forced to give up my right to keep and bear arms is so infinitesimal it can be easily dismissed so I don't worry about it. What does concern me are intrusive oppressive laws that are unnecessary and are enacted on faulty reasoning, be it in the name of safety and gun control or any other false pretext.
Is it punishment that I'm not allowed to own my own nuclear reactor? Is it punishment that I'm not allowed to punch people in the face? You're bending the word to absurdity and beyond.
Ouze wrote: The fact a large number of gun deaths in the US probably shouldn't be handwaved away as saying well, a lot are suicide. Yes, that is true, but I think most reasonable people can probably agree that suicide is very much an impulsive act, and access to a firearm gives a much higher chance of successfully executing it. Yes, if you really want to, there is nothing stopping you from running in front of a bus or jumping off a bridge, but by and large, the amount of successful suicides in this country are at least in part because of easy access to firearms.
This isn't an argument that we need to ban firearms, just one of those things we have to accept that we're OK with as the cost for our way of life.
Prestor Jon wrote: Most drownings are accidental and there are many times more accidental drownings deaths than accidental shooting deaths.
And tell me, do most localities not have requirements to try and mitigate this? i.e. require a fence around a pool?`
We don't really do this with firearms. States that attempt to require firearms be secured in a safe are decried as both unconstitutional and unworkable, and those arguments aren't without a grain of merit - but it's an attempt to mitigate, just like with pools. When a kid finds a gun and blows away a sibling or themselves, we often describe it as "an accident" and barring some modifier like the owner was a felon, the firearm owner isn't charged with a crime because it "was a tragedy, and they've suffered enough". Again, not making an argument for banning anything but they're both good examples of the weird blinders we wear as Americans.
Pools are open structures that people can wander into an fall into so they are required to be fenced in. Guns are personal property that are kept indoors or on one's person so the need for them to be fenced in isn't present. Indoor pools don't need to be fenced in like outdoor inground pools. Gun storage laws are more problematic because of the 4th Amendment violation caused by their enforcement. Negligence in regards to child welfare is already a crime that is used to punish parents/guardians/adults who are negligent with their gun storage to the extent that it harms minors or allows minors to harm others. People get prosecuted for it and negligent discharges by minors is a much rarer problem than accidental drownings. If the dangers aren't equitable than there is no need for the safeguards addressing them to be equitable.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Is it punishment that I'm not allowed to own my own nuclear reactor? Is it punishment that I'm not allowed to punch people in the face? You're bending the word to absurdity and beyond.
neither of these are rights the way owning a firearm is in the US, and one is so far beyond the means of 99.99999% of the population as to be meaningless and the other is a physical act of aggression as opposed to a property rights issue
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Is it punishment that I'm not allowed to own my own nuclear reactor? Is it punishment that I'm not allowed to punch people in the face? You're bending the word to absurdity and beyond.
No you're just bending what I thought was a pretty clear argument into a something that isn't analogous at all and is indeed absurd. If you had a legal right to own nuclear reactors and you chose to own a nuclear reactor and you had a clean safety record of nuclear reactor ownership and had never broken any nuclear reactor laws and then the government passed a new law that declared nuclear reactor ownership was forbidden and they came to your home and confiscated your nuclear reactor you would be the victim of an undeserved punishment. You would have been deprived of a right and the liberty to exercise it without being afforded due process and without being awarded just compensation.
Suicide is cause by one person using an easy means to carry out the deed. This number should be pointed out so that we can properly assess the seriousness of mental health needs. Simply banning guns will do nothing to help someone planning their suicide mission.
Someone who is suicidal and does not have access to a gun is much less likely to commit suicide than someone who does.
The act of suicide is often impulsive. It's why there are often barriers on high bridges. They aren't impossible to scale, but enough of an obstacle that the suicidal episode passes.
I'm not a proponent of banning guns. But if we could "gunsia exumai" away all the guns tomorrow, suicide rates would drop.
Suicide is cause by one person using an easy means to carry out the deed. This number should be pointed out so that we can properly assess the seriousness of mental health needs. Simply banning guns will do nothing to help someone planning their suicide mission.
Someone who is suicidal and does not have access to a gun is much less likely to commit suicide than someone who does.
The act of suicide is often impulsive. It's why there are often barriers on high bridges. They aren't impossible to scale, but enough of an obstacle that the suicidal episode passes.
I'm not a proponent of banning guns. But if we could "gunsia exumai" away all the guns tomorrow, suicide rates would drop.
This. The UK was able to reduce the number of successful suicides by reducing the amount of paracetamol you could purchase in a single transaction. So the inconvenience of having to go back round the shop and pick up more paracetamol to buy in a separate transaction in order to ensure you had a lethal dose was enough to save some lives.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Is it punishment that I'm not allowed to own my own nuclear reactor? Is it punishment that I'm not allowed to punch people in the face? You're bending the word to absurdity and beyond.
Suicide is cause by one person using an easy means to carry out the deed. This number should be pointed out so that we can properly assess the seriousness of mental health needs. Simply banning guns will do nothing to help someone planning their suicide mission.
Someone who is suicidal and does not have access to a gun is much less likely to commit suicide than someone who does.
The act of suicide is often impulsive. It's why there are often barriers on high bridges. They aren't impossible to scale, but enough of an obstacle that the suicidal episode passes.
I'm not a proponent of banning guns. But if we could "gunsia exumai" away all the guns tomorrow, suicide rates would drop.
Bridges don't just have railings and barriers to prevent suicides.
The problem with trying to keep guns away from suicidal people is that there is no effective way to mark people as suicidal to alert gun stores from selling them guns and there is no way to accurately predict when a given gun owner would become suicidal and there are legal obstacles that prevent the authorities from just confiscating guns from somebody just in case they become suicidal.
Suicide is cause by one person using an easy means to carry out the deed. This number should be pointed out so that we can properly assess the seriousness of mental health needs. Simply banning guns will do nothing to help someone planning their suicide mission.
Someone who is suicidal and does not have access to a gun is much less likely to commit suicide than someone who does.
The act of suicide is often impulsive. It's why there are often barriers on high bridges. They aren't impossible to scale, but enough of an obstacle that the suicidal episode passes.
I'm not a proponent of banning guns. But if we could "gunsia exumai" away all the guns tomorrow, suicide rates would drop.
Bridges don't just have railings and barriers to prevent suicides.
Sure, they also help prevent debris, etc from falling off. But they are called suicide barriers, implying they have a primary purpose.
The problem with trying to keep guns away from suicidal people is that there is no effective way to mark people as suicidal to alert gun stores from selling them guns and there is no way to accurately predict when a given gun owner would become suicidal and there are legal obstacles that prevent the authorities from just confiscating guns from somebody just in case they become suicidal.
Exactly. I am not suggesting we ban guns, because that's basically impossible. I'm refuting the point that "Simply banning guns will do nothing to help someone planning their suicide mission". That statement does not accurately reflect the nature of most suicides.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Is it punishment that I'm not allowed to own my own nuclear reactor? Is it punishment that I'm not allowed to punch people in the face? You're bending the word to absurdity and beyond.
No you're just bending what I thought was a pretty clear argument into a something that isn't analogous at all and is indeed absurd. If you had a legal right to own nuclear reactors and you chose to own a nuclear reactor and you had a clean safety record of nuclear reactor ownership and had never broken any nuclear reactor laws and then the government passed a new law that declared nuclear reactor ownership was forbidden and they came to your home and confiscated your nuclear reactor you would be the victim of an undeserved punishment. You would have been deprived of a right and the liberty to exercise it without being afforded due process and without being awarded just compensation.
We'll just have to agree to disagree, but to me a punishment implies that someone's actively reacting to something you've either done or are percieved as having done by the acting party. The intention of a hypothetical gun-ban is not to "teach you a lesson" or in any other way bring retribution for something anyone's done, it's an end to another mean than punishment. We might be getting a bit too philosophical here though.
Ouze wrote: The fact a large number of gun deaths in the US probably shouldn't be handwaved away as saying well, a lot are suicide. Yes, that is true, but I think most reasonable people can probably agree that suicide is very much an impulsive act, and access to a firearm gives a much higher chance of successfully executing it. Yes, if you really want to, there is nothing stopping you from running in front of a bus or jumping off a bridge, but by and large, the amount of successful suicides in this country are at least in part because of easy access to firearms.
This isn't an argument that we need to ban firearms, just one of those things we have to accept that we're OK with as the cost for our way of life.
.
Actually, there are a number of things that throw a wrench into those statistics. Now, having a firearm DOES increase the chance of you pulling off a suicide, but it's not as bad as you think.
There are two different "kinds" of suicide attmept: An actual real suicide attempt, and the cry for help/attention. Cries for attention are the larger group, and the manner of attempt is not evenly distributed. Few people try to get attention by shooting themselves in the head.
Men are more likely than women to try an actual attempt, and men are more likely to own firearms.
Also, suicide attempts and physical location are also linked. Obviously firearms are more concentrated in rural areas, which also have fewer options for mental health help. People there are less likely to see a doctor, and more likely to have feelings of isolation. So in this sense, firearms ownership and suicide are correlational, but not really causitive.
Ouze wrote: The fact a large number of gun deaths in the US probably shouldn't be handwaved away as saying well, a lot are suicide. Yes, that is true, but I think most reasonable people can probably agree that suicide is very much an impulsive act, and access to a firearm gives a much higher chance of successfully executing it. Yes, if you really want to, there is nothing stopping you from running in front of a bus or jumping off a bridge, but by and large, the amount of successful suicides in this country are at least in part because of easy access to firearms.
This isn't an argument that we need to ban firearms, just one of those things we have to accept that we're OK with as the cost for our way of life.
Prestor Jon wrote: Most drownings are accidental and there are many times more accidental drownings deaths than accidental shooting deaths.
And tell me, do most localities not have requirements to try and mitigate this? i.e. require a fence around a pool?`
We don't really do this with firearms. States that attempt to require firearms be secured in a safe are decried as both unconstitutional and unworkable, and those arguments aren't without a grain of merit - but it's an attempt to mitigate, just like with pools. When a kid finds a gun and blows away a sibling or themselves, we often describe it as "an accident" and barring some modifier like the owner was a felon, the firearm owner isn't charged with a crime because it "was a tragedy, and they've suffered enough". Again, not making an argument for banning anything but they're both good examples of the weird blinders we wear as Americans.
Pools are open structures that people can wander into an fall into so they are required to be fenced in. Guns are personal property that are kept indoors or on one's person so the need for them to be fenced in isn't present. Indoor pools don't need to be fenced in like outdoor inground pools. Gun storage laws are more problematic because of the 4th Amendment violation caused by their enforcement. Negligence in regards to child welfare is already a crime that is used to punish parents/guardians/adults who are negligent with their gun storage to the extent that it harms minors or allows minors to harm others. People get prosecuted for it and negligent discharges by minors is a much rarer problem than accidental drownings. If the dangers aren't equitable than there is no need for the safeguards addressing them to be equitable.
Guns are deadly weapons that children can find and discharge, killing themselves or another. Maybe we should require people to be responsible with them.
Or maybe we should take down the fences around pools so we don't have to have sensible gun laws.
Vaktathi wrote: The person giving up something isnt the one making the decision in this case, the decision is forced upon them.
That's not true. Each and every one of the persons making the decision are giving up something. Now of course it's a decision that needs to be made at a whole community level rather than at a personal level. Hence, some people who disagree are still forced to comply. Just like in every goddamn decision made at a community level.
Are each and every decisions made at a community level rather than at a personal one a punishment?
Vaktathi wrote: There are also very different categories here. You're mixing criminal law and civil law. Traffic laws are an entirely different area of law from drug law.
And that's entirely irrelevant to my whole analogy, which is made more explicit just above.
Prestor Jon wrote: Removing rights and liberties is punishment.[…]
Why do you assume that I don't view drug laws, taxes the same way I view gun control laws?
US individualism at its finest. See just above actually. Apparently you hate decisions that are taken at a community level and then enforced to every member of the community. That's why the US hates communism so much .
Prestor Jon wrote: You would have been deprived of a right and the liberty to exercise it without being afforded due process and without being awarded just compensation.
So it's only a punishment if you are not awarded just compensation? Why do you assume no just compensation? Would you be okay with it if just compensation was given?
Vaktathi wrote: The person giving up something isnt the one making the decision in this case, the decision is forced upon them.
That's not true. Each and every one of the persons making the decision are giving up something. Now of course it's a decision that needs to be made at a whole community level rather than at a personal level. Hence, some people who disagree are still forced to comply. Just like in every goddamn decision made at a community level.
Are each and every decisions made at a community level rather than at a personal one a punishment?
Such decisions generally dont involve forfeiture of established rights and physical property. Thats a huge distinction, and generally tends to have very messy consequences.
A collective decision that you cant just dump garbage anywhere or that murder is wrong is very different from one that overturns a long established right and requires many to give up valuable property, and such collective decisions in the US are very rare indeed.
Suicide is cause by one person using an easy means to carry out the deed. This number should be pointed out so that we can properly assess the seriousness of mental health needs. Simply banning guns will do nothing to help someone planning their suicide mission.
Someone who is suicidal and does not have access to a gun is much less likely to commit suicide than someone who does.
The act of suicide is often impulsive. It's why there are often barriers on high bridges. They aren't impossible to scale, but enough of an obstacle that the suicidal episode passes.
I'm not a proponent of banning guns. But if we could "gunsia exumai" away all the guns tomorrow, suicide rates would drop.
I am not entirely sure of that statement since Japan has a higher suicide rate than the U.S., placing them at number 17 in the world compared to the the U.S. at number 50.
Vaktathi wrote: Such decisions generally dont involve forfeiture of established rights and physical property. Thats a huge distinction, and generally tends to have very messy consequences.
A collective decision that you cant just dump garbage anywhere or that murder is wrong is very different from one that overturns a long established right and requires many to give up valuable property, and such collective decisions in the US are very rare indeed.
The physical property argument makes a lot of sense. Way more than the whole “I'm being punished” one.
feeder wrote: Japan and the US is not analogous. The culture is very different.
The US does indeed have a culture that is different, which makes comparing suicides difficult. However, doesn't that make comparing homicides to other countries difficult as well?
Ouze wrote: The fact a large number of gun deaths in the US probably shouldn't be handwaved away as saying well, a lot are suicide. Yes, that is true, but I think most reasonable people can probably agree that suicide is very much an impulsive act, and access to a firearm gives a much higher chance of successfully executing it. Yes, if you really want to, there is nothing stopping you from running in front of a bus or jumping off a bridge, but by and large, the amount of successful suicides in this country are at least in part because of easy access to firearms.
This isn't an argument that we need to ban firearms, just one of those things we have to accept that we're OK with as the cost for our way of life.
Prestor Jon wrote: Most drownings are accidental and there are many times more accidental drownings deaths than accidental shooting deaths.
And tell me, do most localities not have requirements to try and mitigate this? i.e. require a fence around a pool?`
We don't really do this with firearms. States that attempt to require firearms be secured in a safe are decried as both unconstitutional and unworkable, and those arguments aren't without a grain of merit - but it's an attempt to mitigate, just like with pools. When a kid finds a gun and blows away a sibling or themselves, we often describe it as "an accident" and barring some modifier like the owner was a felon, the firearm owner isn't charged with a crime because it "was a tragedy, and they've suffered enough". Again, not making an argument for banning anything but they're both good examples of the weird blinders we wear as Americans.
Pools are open structures that people can wander into an fall into so they are required to be fenced in. Guns are personal property that are kept indoors or on one's person so the need for them to be fenced in isn't present. Indoor pools don't need to be fenced in like outdoor inground pools. Gun storage laws are more problematic because of the 4th Amendment violation caused by their enforcement. Negligence in regards to child welfare is already a crime that is used to punish parents/guardians/adults who are negligent with their gun storage to the extent that it harms minors or allows minors to harm others. People get prosecuted for it and negligent discharges by minors is a much rarer problem than accidental drownings. If the dangers aren't equitable than there is no need for the safeguards addressing them to be equitable.
Guns are deadly weapons that children can find and discharge, killing themselves or another. Maybe we should require people to be responsible with them.
Or maybe we should take down the fences around pools so we don't have to have sensible gun laws.
We already have child endangerment laws and child neglect laws and negligence laws. If you are irresponsible enough to let a minor get his/her hands on a loaded gun and accidentally game somebody or himself/herself then you will be charged and prosecuted. They're not gun specific laws but they cover guns. It's not like there's no legal ramifications to irresponsible gun ownership. A fence around a pool will keep kids from falling into it and drowning. There is no equivalent way to fence in all of the dozens or hundreds of objects in a home that have the potential for lethal accidents. Failure to be responsible with any of those objects can result in criminal charges. Different safeguards for different dangers.
whembly wrote: So, adding in the suicide numbers with other violent gun deaths simply inflates that number and gives a flawed result.
I'd argue that suicide by gun is a pretty violent way to die and should be considered part of the cost of a society having (relatively) free access to guns.
Unless you're a supporter of eugenics, having depressed people kill themselves is a downside. Of course if you are a supporter of eugenics then I guess guns are great for reducing the number of depressed people in society, given that something like half of depression cases have a genetic link.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prestor Jon wrote: We already have child endangerment laws and child neglect laws and negligence laws. If you are irresponsible enough to let a minor get his/her hands on a loaded gun and accidentally game somebody or himself/herself then you will be charged and prosecuted. They're not gun specific laws but they cover guns. It's not like there's no legal ramifications to irresponsible gun ownership.
But again this is all "after the event" measures. Like if this dude from Florida goes to jail, it doesn't bring back the guy he killed.
You can put people away for using guns recklessly, or you can do what many other cultures across the world do and realise there's always going to be reckless people and remove the item that is likely to turn that recklessness in to deadliness.
Doesn't mean you stop policing the recklessness, just means that recklessness is less likely to result in deaths.
feeder wrote: Are you seriously suggesting that easy access to guns does not contribute to the suicide rate?
I can't deny that guns help those who want to commit suicide, but I also think if guns weren't around, as in Japan, people would still find a way to kill themselves.
feeder wrote: Japan and the US is not analogous. The culture is very different.
The US does indeed have a culture that is different, which makes comparing suicides difficult. However, doesn't that make comparing homicides to other countries difficult as well?
I'd say comparisons are hard to draw, even among countries that might be similar on the surface. Doesn't the amount of sunlight a country receives have a strong correlation with the suicide rate?
But I think even though you can't necessarily compare rates across whole countries, you can look at specific statistics, like putting up barriers on bridges making it less likely for people to commit suicide or selling pain killers in smaller quantities so a person has to stockpile the amount required to commit suicide. Suicide is often impulsive and the more time and effort you have to put in to planning it, the less likely you are to succeed.
I could be wrong but I think with Japan's culture, is there more non-impulsive suicides?
feeder wrote: Are you seriously suggesting that easy access to guns does not contribute to the suicide rate?
I can't deny that guns help those who want to commit suicide, but I also think if guns weren't around, as in Japan, people would still find a way to kill themselves.
But there'd be less people being able to find a way to kill themselves because of the impulsive nature of many suicides. It's why you have so many "attempted suicides", it's not that people are too stupid to kill themselves, if you make it harder to do, people are less likely to succeed.
But I think this is often a common theme with pro-gun debates, "people will still be able to find a way" whether it's violent crime, suicide or stupidity, people will still find a way to kill themselves and each other.... but just because you can't save ALL lives doesn't mean you can't save some.
feeder wrote: Japan and the US is not analogous. The culture is very different.
The US does indeed have a culture that is different, which makes comparing suicides difficult. However, doesn't that make comparing homicides to other countries difficult as well?
Are you saying that the USA has a culture of murder?
feeder wrote: Japan and the US is not analogous. The culture is very different.
The US does indeed have a culture that is different, which makes comparing suicides difficult. However, doesn't that make comparing homicides to other countries difficult as well?
Are you saying that the USA has a culture of murder?
In a way, yes. The US is a nation founded on running out into the unknown (or little known) and not taking a whole lot of guff off anyone. Adding on to that we are a huge mixing pot of incredibly different cultures. As great as being a melting pot is, one of the downsides is increased violence. Studies have shown that the more diverse a community is (regardless of income, education, employment rates, or political ideologies) the more violent it is.
feeder wrote: Japan and the US is not analogous. The culture is very different.
The US does indeed have a culture that is different, which makes comparing suicides difficult. However, doesn't that make comparing homicides to other countries difficult as well?
Are you saying that the USA has a culture of murder?
In a way, yes. The US is a nation founded on running out into the unknown (or little known) and not taking a whole lot of guff off anyone. Adding on to that we are a huge mixing pot of incredibly different cultures. As great as being a melting pot is, one of the downsides is increased violence. Studies have shown that the more diverse a community is (regardless of income, education, employment rates, or political ideologies) the more violent it is.
I think you overestimate how culturally diverse the US is, it usually falls somewhere in the middle compared to most western countries using different cultural diversity statistics, I think it typically ranks below Canada.
Subjectively I'd guess people who move to the US are more likely to adopt much of the local culture compared to other countries as well.
EDIT: Unless by culturally diverse you just mean a decent number of blacks, whites and latinos.
Kilkrazy wrote: Are you saying that the USA has a culture of murder?
I think that the US has a problem with violent murders largely because of the pervasive drug culture. The US consumes far more drugs than most other countries and that helps creates a stage for violence, both from criminal gang activities surrounding the drug trade and crimes committed while users are under the influence of those drugs. A very significant portion of violent crimes occur when somebody is high or drunk. Reduce the impact of the drug culture and it'd go a long way to reducing the murder rate in the US.
Reeves is claiming he is a delicate old man with arthritis and a bad back.
.
Very true. Many idiots are also extremists, and many extremists are also idiots.
